Please check which of 8th edition's optional rules you and/or your opponents actually use in the majority of your games.

If you don't have a clear answer (for example, because you play in two different metas, one casual and one highly competitive), pick your preference.

If a rule would be used but doesn't apply to every game (for example, because you don't have a legends unit in every game or because your army hasn't had its PA yet), check it anyways.

If you don't play 8th edition because you prefer another edition or 30k - I don't care, please don't vote

If you skip other rules regularly that are not listed here, feel free to tell us which ones and why!

This time around, the choice is a more focused around what I feel the community sees as optional, rather than those which GW has declared as such.

Also note that I'm fully aware of the technical limitations of dakka's polling system when it comes to multiple choice polls and the resulting statistical inaccuracies, please don't derail the thread about them.
The resulting numbers are good enough to see trends, and this is what I'm interested in.

Also, don't make this thread about forgeworld, we've had enough of those.

Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

True, but some people here on dakka allegedly have agreed with their gaming group to not use them to avoid continuous expenses.

It also helps to have some entries in there that almost everyone would check to get a rough idea of how many people actually voted

 Jidmah wrote:
True, but some people here on dakka allegedly have agreed with their gaming group to not use them to avoid continuous expenses.

It also helps to have some entries in there that almost everyone would check to get a rough idea of how many people actually voted

On the same lines though, when we see a new strong army or option people push to ban it.
That’s not really an optional rule, it’s more of a players preference.

Also, keep in mind that whining players are a big part of 40k, if they don’t like something (despite how it actually plays) then they complain endlessly and push to ban it.
We could end up with 90% of the units in the game being “optional” at that point lol.

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

All models are optional so please don’t go down that route.
There is not a specific set of models required for every army that you must take.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

Different things. None of the miniatures are themselves required, but PA and FW are not optional in the sense that you'd require an additional agreement from your opponent to use them like you'd need with Cities of Death as an example. You can decline a game on any grounds if you want to, but you cannot require the other player to not use FW as such because they aren't any less core elements of the game than your "normal" main studio codex would be.

Jackal90 wrote:
On the same lines though, when we see a new strong army or option people push to ban it.
That’s not really an optional rule, it’s more of a players preference.

Also, keep in mind that whining players are a big part of 40k, if they don’t like something (despite how it actually plays) then they complain endlessly and push to ban it.
We could end up with 90% of the units in the game being “optional” at that point lol.

This is about finding out what the reality is, not about the future or motivation.

The "FW is not optional" argument has been as old as FW itself is, and while you have a hand full of people being very vocal about banning it, similar polls I've been doing going all the way back to 5th have usually had an overwhelming majority has no problem with it.
There is also the fact that a major tournament organizer - the ETC - bans FW in their events.

The main reason why I included forgeworld despite the danger of this thread derailing because of it is because I wanted to have direct comparison between how well received Legends is compared to other sources of rules.

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

All models are optional so please don’t go down that route.
There is not a specific set of models required for every army that you must take.

I'm not going down any route. They're expansions to the main game. Like how the books with extra monsters or campaign books are additional to the D&D source book.

The base line to play a game of WH40k is an army codex and the BRB.
Outside of the first few games a new player plays, no one plays with less.

Anything beyond that is optional.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

All models are optional so please don’t go down that route.
There is not a specific set of models required for every army that you must take.

I'm not going down any route. They're expansions to the main game. Like how the books with extra monsters or campaign books are additional to the D&D source book.

Then every single new army that is released should be treated as such.
As should any army past the first ones made.
They add on to the existing game and are therefore an expansion by your admittance, and entirely optional.

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

All models are optional so please don’t go down that route.
There is not a specific set of models required for every army that you must take.

I'm not going down any route. They're expansions to the main game. Like how the books with extra monsters or campaign books are additional to the D&D source book.

Then every single new army that is released should be treated as such.
As should any army past the first ones made.
They add on to the existing game and are therefore an expansion by your admittance, and entirely optional.

Why are you being so reductive over something so dumb? Like what's your goal?

So aside from Chapter Approved being pretty popular, and ITC being not particularly popluar, what interesting information can we glean from this poll.

Actually, never mind me. I didn't realize how young this poll is.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

All models are optional so please don’t go down that route.
There is not a specific set of models required for every army that you must take.

I'm not going down any route. They're expansions to the main game. Like how the books with extra monsters or campaign books are additional to the D&D source book.

Then every single new army that is released should be treated as such.
As should any army past the first ones made.
They add on to the existing game and are therefore an expansion by your admittance, and entirely optional.

Why are you being so reductive over something so dumb? Like what's your goal?

Throwing out a straw man isn’t an argument.
I’m just pointing out flawed logic.
You cannot state that 2 things that work in the same way act differently just because “reasons unknown”

Every new book is an addition.
They are either all additions or all part of the core game, you cannot pick and choose to suit an argument.

But PA DOESN'T work the same way as a codex.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But PA DOESN'T work the same way as a codex.

PA is optional if no one else in your play group uses it and doesn't play loyalist marines. If other players use it and you don't then you are generally at a disadvantage, and for most factions going up against loyalists without it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Of course mind even with it many are still bringing pistols against the marines assault rifles....

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
But PA DOESN'T work the same way as a codex.

PA is optional if no one else in your play group uses it and doesn't play loyalist marines. If other players use it and you don't then you are generally at a disadvantage, and for most factions going up against loyalists without it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Of course mind even with it many are still bringing pistols against the marines assault rifles....

That still doesn't't make it required to play the game.

Wow, I didn't realise just how much I didn't use.

Aside from some of the Open/Narrative stuff and Vigilus rules from time to time, I don't use anything on that list. If I had Forgeworld units, they'd be on there too, but as I don't, I didn't tick them off.

Seeing people's arguments for what is optional I would just say this:

Every single thing in this hobby is optional. Sure, we may have some shared ideas of what optional thing we like to keep, but at the core everything is optional. Especially since everything is decided beforehand by two or more players wanting to play a game. Hell, it is optional to play the game if you buy the models. You don't have to play anything and maybe are completely content with painting your miniature.

Only time things don't become optional is when you are participating in a tournament. Tournaments haave explicit rules of what you must abide by to be allowed to compete and are therefore, technically, not optional.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
But PA DOESN'T work the same way as a codex.

PA is optional if no one else in your play group uses it and doesn't play loyalist marines. If other players use it and you don't then you are generally at a disadvantage, and for most factions going up against loyalists without it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Of course mind even with it many are still bringing pistols against the marines assault rifles....

That still doesn't't make it required to play the game.

Only things that are required is 2 armies and the related rules for said armies.
That does not mean everything else is optional (to your own liking)
Unless something states it’s an addition to the rules and requires consent, it’s core rules.

If you don’t like it, make a house rule, simple.

As to the point of D&D additions, they all state that they are campaign additions and are entirely optional.

Hey, Jakal,

Do you get the core concept here? Whether or not you agree that things are optional, Jidmah is asking what resources you use in addition to core rule book and the most current Codex for your faction/s.

Jidmah, if I misrepresented your core concept, please let me know.

Also, for future polls it might be an idea to have a line that just says, “I voted” to compare total number of voters. Someone might not use any, but couldn’t vote to indicate that.

The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play, any more than the SM Codex is not "optional" if you want to play Space Marines. By that logic I want my Index Commissars back because the codex and errata's are "optional".

The term "optional" is not the correct term to use.

To answer the question (replacing the word "optional" with "latest"), I use all the latest matched play rules, even if I dislike them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yeah this really feels more of a "what rules does your local group exclude or ban from play."

You may not use some of the Vigilus stuff yourself in your list, but you can't stop someone else from using it.

And matched play rules are required. If you're going to ignore the updates from CA then why bother using the matched play rules from the rulebook either? You don't get to deep strike stuff in turn 1 (except if you're a drop pod) or cast Doom multiple times a turn. It is LITERALLY not allowed in the OFFICIAL rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yes. I know you love to whinge about how 8th Ed makes you bring several hundred documents to a game but yes, if two people buy only a rulebook and their armies codexes they can play a game even without FAQs and erratas. It may not be a good game, but its still a playable game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yes. I know you love to whinge about how 8th Ed makes you bring several hundred documents to a game but yes, if two people buy only a rulebook and their armies codexes they can play a game even without FAQs and erratas. It may not be a good game, but its still a playable game.

That doesn't make the other rules optional, it means you're not following the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yes. I know you love to whinge about how 8th Ed makes you bring several hundred documents to a game but yes, if two people buy only a rulebook and their armies codexes they can play a game even without FAQs and erratas. It may not be a good game, but its still a playable game.

That doesn't make the other rules optional, it means you're not following the rules.

Which rules? The ones printed in the BRB? Those rules? The basework for which the optional supplements build upon? Those ones?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yes. I know you love to whinge about how 8th Ed makes you bring several hundred documents to a game but yes, if two people buy only a rulebook and their armies codexes they can play a game even without FAQs and erratas. It may not be a good game, but its still a playable game.

That doesn't make the other rules optional, it means you're not following the rules.

Which rules? The ones printed in the BRB? Those rules?

CA supersedes and overrides whatever the BRB says.

Everyone should give the core rules of Cities of Death a try (lucky shot, soft/hard cover, etc..) not really the mission rules or stratagems, just that first 2 pages of rules. They are really good, its what 8th should have had from the start.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Everyone should give the core rules of Cities of Death a try (lucky shot, soft/hard cover, etc..) not really the mission rules or stratagems, just that first 2 pages of rules. They are really good, its what 8th should have had from the start.

Unfortunately as long as GW insistes that you pay extra points tax for weapons based on your BS roll those rules may make terrain more relevant but it screws up the already questionable balance even more.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Yes. I know you love to whinge about how 8th Ed makes you bring several hundred documents to a game but yes, if two people buy only a rulebook and their armies codexes they can play a game even without FAQs and erratas. It may not be a good game, but its still a playable game.

That doesn't make the other rules optional, it means you're not following the rules.

Which rules? The ones printed in the BRB? Those rules?

CA supersedes and overrides whatever the BRB says.

Doesn't matter in this case. You can play the game without CA and only the BRB. CA is optional. If you buy JUST CA2019, can you play the game?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

Because too many people use your they are optional rules stance as justification to limit what models and offical rules others are allowed to play with, like no bringing Forgeworld, no vigilous/psyhcic awakening rules, spacemarine supliments should be banned.

Having people try and ban your fully GW legal army, sucks.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Doesn't matter in this case. You can play the game without CA and only the BRB. CA is optional. If you buy JUST CA2019, can you play the game?

Well, if you're going to be this pedantic then yes, you can.

All you need to play 40k is the free rules pdf on the official website.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Doesn't matter in this case. You can play the game without CA and only the BRB. CA is optional. If you buy JUST CA2019, can you play the game?

Well, if you're going to be this pedantic then yes, you can.

All you need to play 40k is the free rules pdf on the official website.

If you're letting me be pendantic then you're just downloading content from the BRB, so no, you can't.

BaconCatBug wrote:The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play, any more than the SM Codex is not "optional" if you want to play Space Marines. By that logic I want my Index Commissars back because the codex and errata's are "optional".

The term "optional" is not the correct term to use.

To answer the question (replacing the word "optional" with "latest"), I use all the latest matched play rules, even if I dislike them.

Matched Play is optional.

BaconCatBug wrote:That doesn't make the other rules optional, it means you're not following the rules.

No, Matched Play isn't the only way to play. Therefore, even rules that Matched Play *requires* still aren't compulsory, because Open Play and Narrative Play exist, and are equally valid.

Bosskelot wrote:All you need to play 40k is the free rules pdf on the official website.

Yeah, that's the only thing you need, plus datasheets, which one can acquire without Codexes (you usually get a datasheet in the model kit).

Anything else is *technically* optional.

I've been happy to play 40k with only the core rules and datasheets straight from the box.

If you want to play matched play, they are not optional.

Furthermore, even if you play Narrative play, the matched play rules remain non-optional, you're just not using that subset of rules in the game mode you are playing. Not using certain rules in a certain game mode is not synonymous with optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've been happy to play 40k with only the core rules and datasheets straight from the box.

You're using house rules then. Nothing "wrong" with that, I just personally disagree with their use.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

Technically you can just make an army from FW for Space Marines so...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you want to play matched play, they are not optional.

Yeah, but Matched Play is one of three ways to play. Therefore, Matched Play itself is optional. If something is needed for Matched Play, that doesn't change that Matched Play is an optional way to play.

Furthermore, even if you play Narrative play, the matched play rules remain non-optional

No, they're not. What rules are non-optional? If I don't play with points, if I don't use detachments, and I don't use anything beyond the core rules, what part of the Matched Play rules do I *need*?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've been happy to play 40k with only the core rules and datasheets straight from the box.

You're using house rules then. Nothing "wrong" with that, I just personally disagree with their use.

That's not house rules. That's the most basic form of the rules. What part of the rules am I breaking by only playing with the most basic rules, and the most basic datasheets to use those rules?

What part of playing with the most basic rules is 'house rules'?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you want to play matched play, they are not optional.

Furthermore, even if you play Narrative play, the matched play rules remain non-optional, you're just not using that subset of rules in the game mode you are playing. Not using certain rules in a certain game mode is not synonymous with optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've been happy to play 40k with only the core rules and datasheets straight from the box.

You're using house rules then. Nothing "wrong" with that, I just personally disagree with their use.

yet he's still playing 40k, so by your own admission, the core rule + datasheets are enough to play 40k.

I'd say the only thing you need are minis or something that represent the minis to play 40k.
If i play using quarters as my guardsman and a tissue box as a leman russ and to check if we do damage its a simple roll off, i'd say that because youre playing these as if they were classic 40k units, youre playing 40k.

You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

Ice_can wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Everyone should give the core rules of Cities of Death a try (lucky shot, soft/hard cover, etc..) not really the mission rules or stratagems, just that first 2 pages of rules. They are really good, its what 8th should have had from the start.

Unfortunately as long as GW insistes that you pay extra points tax for weapons based on your BS roll those rules may make terrain more relevant but it screws up the already questionable balance even more.

From my games its more balanced and changes the tactics. You'll have players running up small 5mans on top of builds to stop DSing onto those. Its a game changer for sure but you just play it different;y. It has its own meta and that isn't bad just like how ITC is its own meta. Yes different things are better, but why is that bad? Why should every game/mission have the same "good units"?

I fully feel everyone should try a few times.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

Matched Play isn't the only way to play 40k. Therefore, it is an optional way to play, optional meaning "available to be chosen but not obligatory".
Demonstrate to me otherwise.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

optional
/ˈɒpʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
available to be chosen but not obligatory.

I think it's you that's confused about its meaning.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

Matched Play isn't the only way to play 40k. Therefore, it is an optional way to play, optional meaning "available to be chosen but not obligatory".
Demonstrate to me otherwise.

The choice of game mode is optional. The rules for those game modes are not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

Matched Play isn't the only way to play 40k. Therefore, it is an optional way to play, optional meaning "available to be chosen but not obligatory".
Demonstrate to me otherwise.

The choice of game mode is optional. The rules for those game modes are not.

The rules for the game modes are in the non-optional BRB. The additions and improvments to those rules are in optional addition documents.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

Matched Play isn't the only way to play 40k. Therefore, it is an optional way to play, optional meaning "available to be chosen but not obligatory".
Demonstrate to me otherwise.

The choice of game mode is optional. The rules for those game modes are not.

So if the game mode is optional, the rules for those game modes are also optional.

Let's say I'm given a choice between playing 5v5 football, FIFA-reg football, or Rush Goalie - optional. The rules in FIFA reg are compulsory only for FIFA reg, not for 5v5. Therefore, the rules for FIFA reg are optional.

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

You might argue that PA isn't optional, but that doesn't stop me from not owning & not using them for my armies. Doesn't bother anyone I play with & I'm not attending or concerned with your tourney scenes.
This will change for my Ad-Mech - assuming that's where the rules for that goofy looking flyer appear. If so I'll get that book.
Now if my opponent wants to use PA stuff in their armies that's cool.

ccs wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

You might argue that PA isn't optional, but that doesn't stop me from not owning & not using them for my armies. Doesn't bother anyone I play with & I'm not attending or concerned with your tourney scenes.
This will change for my Ad-Mech - assuming that's where the rules for that goofy looking flyer appear. If so I'll get that book.
Now if my opponent wants to use PA stuff in their armies that's cool.

And by that logic using dice is also optional. It's almost like declaring everything "optional" means the game doesn't function.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

ccs wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

You might argue that PA isn't optional, but that doesn't stop me from not owning & not using them for my armies. Doesn't bother anyone I play with & I'm not attending or concerned with your tourney scenes.
This will change for my Ad-Mech - assuming that's where the rules for that goofy looking flyer appear. If so I'll get that book.
Now if my opponent wants to use PA stuff in their armies that's cool.

And by that logic using dice is also optional. It's almost like declaring everything "optional" means the game doesn't function.

As long as you can generate random #s between 1-6? Then yes, the dice are optional. Convenient, bit optional.

All rules are technically optional, thats why we have house rules events like ITC.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
All rules are technically optional, thats why we have house rules events like ITC.

That's going down the of hypotheticals which pointless because hypothetically I have the option to kick my opponent in the balls, take his stuff and claim I won.

Dante has the regular chapter master aura. As does the other snowflake chapter masters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
All rules are technically optional, thats why we have house rules events like ITC.

Especially GW's garbage rules.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
All rules are technically optional, thats why we have house rules events like ITC.

That's going down the of hypotheticals which pointless because hypothetically I have the option to kick my opponent in the balls, take his stuff and claim I won.

Its a valid point tho, even the Ro3 is just a suggestion. You are the one Hyperboling "I can kick you in the balls if i want". When talking to your opponent you can suggest a rule change or a different set of rules at anytime. It is actually somewhat common in many play groups/areas.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
All rules are technically optional, thats why we have house rules events like ITC.

That's going down the of hypotheticals which pointless because hypothetically I have the option to kick my opponent in the balls, take his stuff and claim I won.

Its a valid point tho, even the Ro3 is just a suggestion. You are the one Hyperboling "I can kick you in the balls if i want". When talking to your opponent you can suggest a rule change or a different set of rules at anytime. It is actually somewhat common in many play groups/areas.

Fair enough. But most people use the BRB framework for their house rules still.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like declaring everything "optional" means the game doesn't function.

The only things that you *need* to play are a collection of models, dice, a tape measure, datasheets for the models you're using, and the core rules (ie, how to use the datasheets with the dice and models), from my RAW understanding of the game.

Everything beyond that is an optional addition to the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you want to play matched play, they are not optional.

Furthermore, even if you play Narrative play, the matched play rules remain non-optional, you're just not using that subset of rules in the game mode you are playing. Not using certain rules in a certain game mode is not synonymous with optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've been happy to play 40k with only the core rules and datasheets straight from the box.

You're using house rules then. Nothing "wrong" with that, I just personally disagree with their use.

He's not using house rules. Every rule he uses is printed by GW. He's just choosing to play open. That's valid.

No one is saying you have to. No one is trying to limit what anyone else can play with. All this dude is saying is that it is possible to play that way, and it absolutely is. I wouldn't personally do it, just because I think it would be boring.

And to insist that because you need a book because it contains matched play rules if you never plan to play matched play is just kinda... Missing the point. Remember Y'all, this ain't a thread about how you think everybody else should play. It's a thread about how YOU play.

So BCB, OBVIOUSLY, you like matched play better than open, and therefore, for you, the BRB is required. Valid. OP wanted to catch that information. Thanks for contributing.

SGT Smudge obviously sometimes at least, likes playing open, and so sometimes enjoys games that don't require the BRB. GW intended for that to be possible, and OP wanted to know whether anyone ever actually does that. Now OP knows. Thanks SGT Smudge.

See how one need not tear down another's viewpoint in order for one's own viewpoint to be valid? Neat eh? Everybody wins. Go figure.

House rules my a$$.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Hey, Jakal,

Do you get the core concept here? Whether or not you agree that things are optional, Jidmah is asking what resources you use in addition to core rule book and the most current Codex for your faction/s.

Jidmah, if I misrepresented your core concept, please let me know.

Yes, this would be correct.

Also, for future polls it might be an idea to have a line that just says, “I voted” to compare total number of voters. Someone might not use any, but couldn’t vote to indicate that.

I tried that in the past, but it doesn't really work out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The CA19 matched play rules updates are not "optional" if you want to play matched play

Yes it is.
If you can play the game without it, its optional. This isn't a difficult concept and I don't understand why people are having a hard time grasping it.

So by that logic the errata and Codexes are optional too? Index and BRB only with zero errata was a hellish time, especially for things like Space Wolves where 90% of the list was broken.

Whether you use a codex or an index to find your army rules is irrelevant to this poll. Having one or the other is not optional, because you can't play the game without datasheets.
The poll is not a full list of optional rules. It's a list of rules that I regularly read about people using or not using. The amount of people not using codices is extremely small and of no interest to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You keep using the word "optional" when that is not the correct word. Do I need to break out The Princess Bride?

There are multiple people here on dakka claiming that their play groups have decided to stick with BRB+Indexes, and they are playing fully functional games of WH40k 8th edition. This is proof that every rules resource released afterwards and all their contents are optional.

You can play a functionally complete game without CA 2019. Therefore all content of 2019, including the matched rule update, is optional.

And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

Achkyually...

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
Technically, not every rule there is optional.

Using specific formats always is (but forms a lot of my games)

Stuff like PA, FW etc is part of the game, not an optional extra.

PA rules are optional supplements and FW are optional models. They are not required to play the game.

True. Same applies to codexes and plastic models though. In that logic where's gw codexes/models on list? If you put fw on option but not those it's rather illogical. Both are as non-optional

I am fairly certain the BRB tells you the correct datasheet is the most current datasheet. So using outdated datasheets would be non optional and house rules. As others have said, thats not a problem. But it's also just what it is. The fact that GW has made getting the correct datasheets a never ending carrot on a stick is bs for everyone but also irrelevant. The "correct" way is the most current datasheets with the most current points/PL if points/pl is what you are using.

BaconCatBug wrote:And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

Having working break lights is legally required. Even if you're not using them, they're not optional. Can you physically drive without them? Yes. Can you legally drive without them? No.

Matched Play rules are only "needed" when you play Matched Play, and Matched Play itself is an option. There is no legal requirement to use any of the rules beyond the core rules in the Battle Primer and the datasheets. Incorrect analogy.

Lance845 wrote:I am fairly certain the BRB tells you the correct datasheet is the most current datasheet.

The battle primer makes no mention of that. Yes, it would be logical to assume that the most recent is the most valid, but it's not houseruling to use an outdated sheet. RAW, all you need are the core rules, a surface to play on, a tape measure, dice, models, and their datasheets.

I use the rulebook, codex, CA18 and FAQs. Never got around to getting CA19 and haven’t bought the codex supplement even though I play a space marine successor chapter. Haven’t got any of the PA stuff either.

Yes. The battle primer doesn't say that. The BRB does. Do you play with detachments, cp, stratagems? The rules governing all that is in the BRB. Not the battle primer. If you are using the BRB then you are USING the BRB. At which point. Latest data sheets.

Unless you are house ruling. Which again. Great. I encourage it. But that's what it is

Aash wrote:
I use the rulebook, codex, CA18 and FAQs. Never got around to getting CA19 and haven’t bought the codex supplement even though I play a space marine successor chapter. Haven’t got any of the PA stuff either.

But HOOOOOOOWWWW? It's LITERALLY impossible to play the game without CA19 and Vigilus.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yes. The battle primer doesn't say that. The BRB does. Do you play with detachments, cp, stratagems? The rules governing all that is in the BRB. Not the battle primer. If you are using the BRB then you are USING the BRB. At which point. Latest data sheets.

Unless you are house ruling. Which again. Great. I encourage it. But that's what it is

Through that lens I can see the point; I think it's fair to call it house ruling if you're not using the current point values. In my own personal games, I never use power level, but some players do; players who chose to play PL wouldn't be using house rules, unless PL's also changed in CA.

As for FAQ's, yeah, if you choose to ignore those, that would also constitute houseruling. FAQ's are free though.

Guess I shouldn't have gotten as snide as I did with BCB. As always with 40k, things are usually more nuanced than we give them credit for- myself included.

Regarding OP, Urban Conquest isn't on the list; while Urban Conquest CONTAINS City Fight rules, the Streets of Death Campaign System in Urban Conquest is not formally part of City Fight.
Also, if you're an escalation campaign player, you might use Kill Team and Apocalypse as part of the system; I can see why you might leave those out, as they are not played WITHIN the 40K rules set but as a supplement to it, but again, lines are blurry.

And yeah, for the record, I urban Conquest Streets of Death from Kill Team through 40K to Apocalypse. I don't actually have the Apocalypse rules yet- none of the armies is anywhere near big enough yet.

Wow, this thread just blew up on the launch pad, didn't it?

Lance845 wrote:Yes. The battle primer doesn't say that. The BRB does.

It is perfectly acceptable to play 40k with just the core rules in the Battle Primer. Those are the basics, the most fundamental building blocks of 40k.
So, unless it's in both the BRB and the Battle Primer, it's optional.

Do you play with detachments, cp, stratagems?

I choose to, but they are optional. Most people use them too, but they are optional, like how Matched Play is.
For some opponents, I play only the most basic rules in the Battle Primer (so, no stratagems, no command points, and no detachments beyond 'these are what models you have'). That's not house rules. That's playing according to the Battle Primer.

The rules governing all that is in the BRB. Not the battle primer. If you are using the BRB then you are USING the BRB. At which point. Latest data sheets.

That's great, but the BRB isn't strictly *needed* to play 40k. Again, the free Battle Primer, the source of rules that comes in every starter box (not Start Collecting, though that would be nice), has all the *core* rules, and outright says in it "this is all you need to play a game of Warhammer 40,000".
If you needed the BRB, what are the people who just buy a box of Dark Imperium playing?

Unless you are house ruling. Which again. Great. I encourage it. But that's what it is

Playing with the Battle Primer isn't house ruling.

Playing with JUST the battle primer is esentially playing a demo version of the game. And I agree. It's not house ruling. But the moment you are not JUST using the battle primer then your playing the actual not demo game. And the BRB tells you what rules are currently valid. The most current datasheets. The most current point values.

You are of course free to not use point values or detachments or PL and do Open in the most broad and basic version. And thats great. Again. Do what you want.

But, again, ARE you using CP and stratagems? ARE you using detachments? Are you using point values? Great. You just crossed the line out of the demo and into the BRB. Now you have a hard fast not optional rule telling you which datasheets and point values to use.

House rule it away. Again. Awesome. It's not "less than" to be house ruling. 40ks a fething mess and house rules is what makes it bearable at all. Call it what it is.

 Lance845 wrote:
Playing with JUST the battle primer is esentially playing a demo version of the game.

The Battle Primer explicitly states that all you need to play 40k is that. Anything else beyond that is optional. Yes, those extra options might be the most common ways to play, and they might add a great deal more depth to the game, but they are optional.

If OP wanted to say "optional additions beyond the BRB", that's not what their title says.

But the moment you are not JUST using the battle primer then your playing the actual not demo game.

The Battle Primer isn't the "demo game". It's the core rules. Everything beyond that is optional.

You are of course free to not use point values or detachments or PL and do Open in the most broad and basic version. And thats great. Again. Do what you want.

I am doing what I want - taking the core rules, and adding optional elements from other sections, like command points and stratagems. That's not houseruling though.

But, again, ARE you using CP and stratagems? ARE you using detachments? Are you using point values? Great. You just crossed the line out of the demo and into the BRB. Now you have a hard fast not optional rule telling you which datasheets and point values to use.

No, I'm using optional additions to the core ruleset.

There is no "demo" version of 40k. There are the core rules (in the Battle Primer), and everything beyond that is an optional experience you can add to your game.

Quoting the Primer:

Battle Primer, Page 13 wrote:So now you know what a datasheet is and how it works – in conjunction with
the core rules that follow (plus your Citadel Miniatures, battlefield, dice and tape
measure, of course!), you’ve got everything you need to start playing games of
Warhammer 40,000 and dive into epic battle.

Emphasis mine.

"Demo" 40k would be something like no charge or fight phase. The Battle Primer offers the very core of what you *need* to play.

House rule it away. Again. Awesome. It's not "less than" to be house ruling. 40ks a fething mess and house rules is what makes it bearable at all. Call it what it is.

I am calling it what it is - the core rules. You're the one pretending like they're not valid to be called the core rules (which it literally says on the Primer).

Call stratagems, detachments, and command points what they are - optional. What's the harm in that?

Half this thread is currently arguing that it's actually illegal to play 7th edition of WH40k because it has been superseded by 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

From personal experience, I can assure that my car neither stopped driving nor being a car when its break lights broke last fall.
Not to mention that racing cars usually never have any break-lights at all, but still are considered cars.

Therefore breaklights are clearly an optional part of a car, unlike the wheels or the motor.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

Having working break lights is legally required. Even if you're not using them, they're not optional. Can you physically drive without them? Yes. Can you legally drive without them? No.

Actually.... What's your countries laws concerning vintage automobiles? Ford Model Ts for example did not originally come with tail/brake lights. They were a later option. And with the right plates & paperwork you can still drive an unmodified T around here in the states.
I'd imagine there's plenty of other auto manufactures of the time also missing what's now required features.

ccs wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

Having working break lights is legally required. Even if you're not using them, they're not optional. Can you physically drive without them? Yes. Can you legally drive without them? No.

Actually.... What's your countries laws concerning vintage automobiles? Ford Model Ts for example did not originally come with tail/brake lights. They were a later option. And with the right plates & paperwork you can still drive an unmodified T around here in the states.
I'd imagine there's plenty of other auto manufactures of the time also missing what's now required features.

Highway Code states to "take special care that lights, brakes, steering, exhaust system, seat belts, demisters, wipers and washers are all working." Aka, if it had lights, those lights need to be working. So, sure, unless BCB is driving a car which wasn't built with brake lights. Still wouldn't make it optional, as optional would imply that you could go without break lights on a modern car.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:And I can drive a car without break-lights. It doesn't make them optional.

Having working break lights is legally required. Even if you're not using them, they're not optional. Can you physically drive without them? Yes. Can you legally drive without them? No.

Actually.... What's your countries laws concerning vintage automobiles? Ford Model Ts for example did not originally come with tail/brake lights. They were a later option. And with the right plates & paperwork you can still drive an unmodified T around here in the states.
I'd imagine there's plenty of other auto manufactures of the time also missing what's now required features.

Highway Code states to "take special care that lights, brakes, steering, exhaust system, seat belts, demisters, wipers and washers are all working." Aka, if it had lights, those lights need to be working. So, sure, unless BCB is driving a car which wasn't built with brake lights. Still wouldn't make it optional, as optional would imply that you could go without break lights on a modern car.

True, but only for a road car. A track car, rally car, nascar, formula one etc are all cars and don’t necessarily need lights, and not having them doesn’t stop them from being a car. And they are all perfectly legal, when used for the designed purpose. A formula one car isn’t allowed to drive on the road, but in a Grand Prix it is entirely legal, whereas a road car would not be.

Aash wrote:
True, but only for a road car. A track car, rally car, nascar, formula one etc are all cars and don’t necessarily need lights, and not having them doesn’t stop them from being a car. And they are all perfectly legal, when used for the designed purpose. A formula one car isn’t allowed to drive on the road, but in a Grand Prix it is entirely legal, whereas a road car would not be.

Fair enough, so we're getting to the various options of what a "car" is! So a rule that's in place for one, and is *needed*, isn't needed for something else.

So, likewise, rules that would be in play for Matched aren't necessarily compulsory for the most basic version of 40k, and are therefore optional.

Hey all, I know it's easy to get sidestracked on what's "optional" and what exactly that means in the strictest sense, but I think the gist was more trying to see what's most in most widespread common use among the community. If we could stick to that instead of chasing officialdom analogies over cars and the like, I think we'll be better off. Thanks!

I voted... nothing. No more actual games for me until something sensible comes in the form of 9th Ed. This last Ed can burn. All of it. CA. Vigilus. PA... just the End Times done half again as well. Yeah... not worth the time to figure out. GW doesn’t take their game seriously enough to do it well, why should I give my life to sorting out their mess. Snipers that don’t need line of sight. Oh.. jeebus.

 jeff white wrote:
I voted... nothing. No more actual games for me until something sensible comes in the form of 9th Ed. This last Ed can burn. All of it. CA. Vigilus. PA... just the End Times done half again as well. Yeah... not worth the time to figure out. GW doesn’t take their game seriously enough to do it well, why should I give my life to sorting out their mess. Snipers that don’t need line of sight. Oh.. jeebus.

Good job, you helped ruin the vote by doing exactly what OP asked you not to do. Nobody cares that you don't play 8th edition, most of the world's population doesn't.

I cannot glean the littlest bit of information from this poll unless 90% of people legitimately don't play with CA19 pts. Do they play PL or house ruled pts or what? None of the categories has more than 10%, what is going on with this poll? Am I just not understanding how to read the results? You are supposed to click yes on all the rules you use right?

You do vote for each used option, yes.

The percentages are compared to all other votes.

Unfortunately, we don’t know how many people voted (for example, right now about 100 people use the first option, so it’s the most popular “option” where few people use cities of death rules (about 25).

We can get a sense of what’s relatively popular, but we couldn’t say that “xx” percent of people use CA19 points updates, because we don’t know how many voted.

You can interpret relative popularity of expanded materials. For example, right now, materials with 70 + votes would be considered bordering on “standard” where materials with 30 - votes might be unusual... if we were to make a meta consisting of the people that voted.

 greatbigtree wrote:
You do vote for each used option, yes.

The percentages are compared to all other votes.

Unfortunately, we don’t know how many people voted (for example, right now about 100 people use the first option, so it’s the most popular “option” where few people use cities of death rules (about 25).

We can get a sense of what’s relatively popular, but we couldn’t say that “xx” percent of people use CA19 points updates, because we don’t know how many voted.

You can interpret relative popularity of expanded materials.

Alright cool, thank you. Didn't mean to derail the thread, just wanted to know exactly what the thing is telling me. If we assume 100 votes then I am surprised by how few people play with Legends, I thought it was mostly competitive gamers that didn't. Perhabs it's just that those choices aren't particularly interesting or something, but I'd think they were much more popular. The amount of people that play narrative missions really surprises me, the lack of overlap between missions is also surprising, between all three you get 131/97 or 131/100, that means less than half of players play more than one of these types of missions. Only War isn't even listed, I assume that's what everyone plays normally since it's the only real way to play and that's why we have so little overlap. JK.

For my group, we generally use the first three, but we often play 3 or 4 players at a time, so we usually use an 8x4 board, regardless of points.

Other than rules updates through BattleScribe, I got off the rules train after the AM Codex came out, though we try to keep up with the free rules updates in FAQs and such.

If I were to play Marines these days, and outside of KT I don’t, but if I did I’d be building out of the old Codex using current points through BattleScribe. I have no interest in pumping hundreds of dollars into rules for a game I seldom *enjoy*. Too little back and forth for my liking, but I’ve got other games that keep me interested and the wheel eventually turns. I hated 7th, liked early 8th, now find it distasteful again. The wheel turns and I’ll get actively re-engaged again some say.

this has to be the only game system, well apart from Warhammer, where anyone asking what sort of rules people like or use will immediately degenerate into an argument over what the word "optional" means...

you can see some bits of the GW output are intended to be part of the core rules, but not everyone is willing to fork out for an often expensive expansion to get one or two pages of actual content so they become 'optional' by default, in that many opt not to bother.

personally: "do you have the book with the rules in it?" is about the only question I'm bothered with, not a scanned copy, or something you downloaded, or something from some on line army builder - do you have the actual printed copy of the rule or other 'official' source.

if the answer is yes, then feel free to use it, if its got something in that changes how my army operates that I have not seen however then as far as I'm concerned that doesn't exist for this one game - happy to read it and take account for the next one though (e.g. point changes, structure changes, changes to how rules work - stuff that would actually change what I have with me had I known)

there have been 'optional' bits for 40k (and WHFB) for decades, e.g. it was always a shock when someone in warhammer would play anything other than "battle line" as the scenario, the 5th edition scenarios book for 40k was great fun, I love how 'cities of death' works and seriously wish that was how the main terrain thing works but because its "optional" the only time people want it is when they get an advantage.

if GW want to, as the obviously do, continue with this part work ruleset they need to come up with a much better format for it and have the thing live in a ring binder for the rules - so when a new supplement comes out it is obvious if its slots in to the main rules bit or not

personally though, you have some weird FW monster I've never heard of, and the actual book for it, yes I'd like to see that on the table to see what it does

leopard wrote:
.
personally: "do you have the book with the rules in it?" is about the only question I'm bothered with, not a scanned copy, or something you downloaded, or something from some on line army builder - do you have the actual printed copy of the rule or other 'official' source.

What of its a scanned copy that they've printed out then put it in a ring binder they personally organised to cut down on the amount of flicking about over multiple books they need to do?

 Sim-Life wrote:

leopard wrote:
.
personally: "do you have the book with the rules in it?" is about the only question I'm bothered with, not a scanned copy, or something you downloaded, or something from some on line army builder - do you have the actual printed copy of the rule or other 'official' source.

What of its a scanned copy that they've printed out then put it in a ring binder they personally organised to cut down on the amount of flicking about over multiple books they need to do?

That's fine, but this quickly devolves down into a piracy discussion which is always messy. In an ideal world if attending an event I personally feel its polite/prudent to have the publications there as well, just in case a reference or query comes up on a page you potentially missed and as a hard copy to ensure the scans aren't incorrect etc. But even then, happy to use the reference folder instead of forcing the use of 5 books on the edge of the table.

Yeah, the actual book is quite useless for heavily errata'ed codices.

I just wanna say this is the most dakkadakka thread i've ever seen. 2 or 3 posts actually answering the question and about 100 arguing over the definition of optional

 Elemental wrote:
Wow, this thread just blew up on the launch pad, didn't it?

I've said it once and I'll say it again- Needless pedantry and Dakka. Name a more iconic duo.

So, with over a hundred dakkanauts having voted, I guess we can start drawing first conclusions.

- People using up to date matched play rules are still very likely to use the rule of three, and most of them also use the detachment limit. The percentages are almost identical to the last poll.
- As a surprise, the suggestions for table sizes have become vastly more popular than last time I did this poll, now used by roughly three out of four voters.
- Being able to play with/face forgeworld rules is roughly as likely as using the detachment limit. You are more likely to be forced to adhere to the rule of 3 than to be able to play a forgeworld unit.
- Legends aren't used/allowed by more than half the voters. Only stuff from Blackstone Fortress or the mostly useless Kill Team units have less acceptance.
- As expected, the vast majority of people is not using the stuff without point values, even if they are playing narrative missions
- Unlike in previous editions, White Dwarf rules seem to be wildly accepted.
- Surprisingly few people are actually using the ITC as their way of playing. From the presences it has in tactical discussions and the perceived dominance in North America I've at least expected 50%, if not more. I certainly did not expect them to draw even with narrative missions.
- The default way to play seems to be using the most current rules for matched play, including all campaign books and all the organized play suggestions, playing a CA 2019 mission. In those games you are very likely to be able to use rules from both forgeworld and white dwarf rules, but might not be able to use datasheets from other rule sources, including legends.

 Jidmah wrote:

- Surprisingly few people are actually using the ITC as their way of playing. .

Why is that surprising?

As a small caveat, while my group only really uses the first three options, I wouldn't be opposed to the use of other sources.

I wouldn't say "No" to someone using a "Legend" model. I just don't do it myself.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- Surprisingly few people are actually using the ITC as their way of playing. .

Why is that surprising?

As stated, the presence of ITC in threads about tactics and in blogs/videos suggests that way more people are playing ITC. Apparently, their followers are just more vocal.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- Surprisingly few people are actually using the ITC as their way of playing. .

Why is that surprising?

As stated, the presence of ITC in threads about tactics and in blogs/videos suggests that way more people are playing ITC. Apparently, their followers are just more vocal.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/784929.page

I did a poll specifically about who plays ITC a few months ago.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- Surprisingly few people are actually using the ITC as their way of playing. .

Why is that surprising?

As stated, the presence of ITC in threads about tactics and in blogs/videos suggests that way more people are playing ITC. Apparently, their followers are just more vocal.

The issue is you maybe haven't asked the question you think you have, or atleast I didn't take the option in the poll to mean what you take it to mean.

If you had asked ITC missions then you'll get 1 answer.
ITC format is a kinda ambiguous term, an event can be an ITC event and use malestorm or custom missions I'm sure someone who is more current can explain this better.

Also the tactics threads tend to get the people more interested in winning and hence more likely to be going to events more likely to be running ITC mission pack or atleast understand it impacts the viability of certain lists.

Narative events exsist but most of those players are in it for a different reason so less likely to be found in tactics theads.

Y'know there's plenty of us who don't play tournaments but still try to win right?

Using and not using WD rules are not the same as accepted. I've never seen anyone, any local, or even an event from at least 2010 till not, not allow WD rules. Some has stated you need the real WD (b.c powerful combos like Skyhammer), but never really said no to them. For years some armies only been in WD.

Ice_can wrote:
ITC format is a kinda ambiguous term, an event can be an ITC event and use malestorm or custom missions I'm sure someone who is more current can explain this better.

I literally used the name on the document explaining this mission.

 Jidmah wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
ITC format is a kinda ambiguous term, an event can be an ITC event and use malestorm or custom missions I'm sure someone who is more current can explain this better.

I literally used the name on the document explaining this mission.

No that document is Titled (2020) 8th Edition ITC Champion Mission pack.

 Shooter wrote:
I just wanna say this is the most dakkadakka thread i've ever seen. 2 or 3 posts actually answering the question and about 100 arguing over the definition of optional

I take umbrage with your use of the word "definition" you swine. Have at you!

I wonder, if the word dakka has come to mean "arguing about the meaning of words to insane levels pedantry", does that mean that Orks now refer mass firepower as https://imgflip.com/i/41zroq

The shift to more acceptance of WD content probably has more to do with more "core" rules appearing in it for things like Assassins and entire armies like Deathwatch and Harlequins. I think prior to Assassins there was very little rules material in WD that seemed like it was designed to be used without prior consent.

The ITC thing isn't so surprising to me, but then I've always felt proponents of ITC were just more vocal than people playing other mission types. I think the improvement in the CA19 missions has probably helped people move towards them as viable. They're easier to understand, too, which is a big factor for a lot of people and they have genuine variety.

Overall the poll seems to be pointing to more or less what I would have expected so far.