What would you like to see for 40K in 2019-2020?

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.

**Not Online!!!**

Stormonu wrote:
Can we please take the (ITC) tournament discussion elsewhere?

considering this is a relevant discussion to the hobby overall i would say it is quite well here where it is.

**Racerguy180**

Peregrine wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

Spoiler:

Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

Peregrine wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

Akar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?

Your statement operates under the assumption that the ITC, and other Alt-40k formats, is making improvements to the game. Which is only true when you cater to individuals who dislike the rules changes. This is BRILLIANT on the ITC part, since there is profit to be made off of creating an environment to provide for those who feel the same way. It also means that the ITC, specifically its ranking system, is only relevant to the ITC community. Same applies to all of the Alt-40k formats, but the ITC is probably the lead contender.

The TRUE absurdity is the belief that any Alt-40k format is somehow superior to the 40k format by default, or that the changes made are for the good of the community as a whole, and not just limited to their respective formats. This elitism is what is dividing the 40k community and has created a very Toxic environment. It doesn’t matter where the pro-40k players voice their views, there is always someone trying to shut them down, rather than trying to find ways to include them. What’s odd is that the ‘You will be assimilated’ attitude of the Alt-40k community is NOT one that Reecius, and probably a majority of the FLG team, push or even support. Reecius himself has said on several occasions that players can play how they want, something the ITC/Alt-40k community needs to adopt. There are Competetive players out there who don’t participate in Alt-40k events, like the ITC.

Competetive 40k itself has become problematic, since it no longer means what it’s supposed to. The strictest definition should be, ‘Those who play 40k in a competition setting’. The Alt-40k community has restricted its application to those who support their respective formats. Comments of lists, units, Armies, missions, etc, as not being ‘competetive’ plague every social aspect of the game. Trying to find Battle Reports, List advice, even answers to some rules questions, that AREN’T influenced by the Alt-40k community is not impossible, but is more difficult than it should be.

[spoiler]The ITC has been the biggest detriment to Competetive 40k for sometime. I’m sure this applies to other Alt-40k groups, but the ITC is the most active one in my area, so can only base my observations on them. From 6th to 7th, GW underestimated how big of a monster the ITC had become. They did listen to the community at the time and gave us Maelstrom in response to the stale EW missions in tournament play, and Allies to give narrative a boost. We also got Death Stars addressed to a degree and then there was the Formations to encourage themed play. All of which the ITC cherry picked what to include.

That loss of control was a huge factor in us getting 8th, but that’s just my gut feeling on it. This time GW was smart, and included the ITC in their playtesting, feedback, and development of what is still their game. The release of 8th should’ve brought the ITC/Alt-40k community back in line with what they want 40k to be. Instead, they gave GW the finger and kept to their old ways.

Chapter Approved and the FAQs come along, still including the ITC, showing a level of activity never seen before on GWs part. We don’t have to wait for updates on codexes before we see points changes. We have a concrete release of FAQs clarifying what the intent is. Most importantly, we’ve gotten a yearly update of the missions that GW wants us to play. These are influenced by the inclusion of the ITC community. There are technically 36 missions the are instructing us how they want the game played, with the most current 12 reflect the influence of Alt-40k. Of these, the ITC has still given the finger to GW and refuse to play the game, even after they’ve been included.

GW will eventually need to do something to bring the community back together. If NOT, then they need to release a statement showing that each FAQ/CA mission update will push the game closer to what the Alt-40k wants. That way, we can decide to sell off our armies before the ITC drives the company into the ground.

**The Newman**

Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.

**pm713**

The Newman wrote:
Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.

But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

**Eihnlazer**

Spoiler:

Akar wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
Killing off 60+% of the competitive tournaments in NA can hardly be called good for the game no matter how much anyone may dislike the ITC format.

Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?

NO one is suggesting we kill off competitive tournaments. Just the format. If there is one thing that the FLG guys have shown is that they will sell out tickets no matter how bad they screw the game up. I have ZERO doubt that should they scrap their system and play 40k that players would still show up and complete. I honestly believe they are in the BEST position to do so. ITC champs for LVO next year are over 5 or 600 right? Why not split the event and have the ITC format and 40k formats both running, split the prize pool and create more winners for these events? You could even go 3 ways have have Maelstrom / Eternal War / and ITC formats all represented with that player base.

This alone would significantly improve the quality of the community and reveal more about the current state of the game than the current competitive scene does.
- Non Alt-40k players would have an option worth attending. You wouldn't have to worry about not filling all the available space, as players would select which format they prefer to play at the time of registration and go until seats sell out. Not only would this include the community, but it would also show the number of players who actually prefer 40k over the ITC. (Still skewed based on who would sign up first as I was told that they were sold out within hours)

- Since army lists tend to be different for both formats, we'd get to see a side by side comparison on how armies perform in 40k compared to how they perform in the ITC. This is a Win-Win for GW because there are two outcomes. One, the rankings are completely different to the ITC which would reveal that the ITC isn't reflective of the current state of 40k. Two, the performance of armies in the two formats don't change, which means all the extra crap that the ITC includes isn't necessary and isn't balancing the game at all. Both of these outcomes would result in the ITC needing to scrap it's format. The second one would show which armies GW needs to address in terms of needing an update. This would eventually happen in the first one, but not until everyone starts playing competitive 40k instead of the ITC.

So my WISH for 2019-2020 is for GW to release an official Tournament kit. (On topic again, My apologies Stormonu)

EVEN if GW did release a tournament kit that was in direct contrast to Alt-40k, and the ITC didn't adopt it, it would be a win-win for the community. Supporting what the ITC is built on, players are allowed to play how they want, and as long as the ITC keeps filling it's seats, then there would be no reason to stop offering an alternative for those who don't play 40k in it's current state. What is would do is force the ITC (and other Alt-40k events) to title their events properly. Honestly this is something that a majority of pro Alt-40k already do by stating up front if their events/lists/rules questions are directed at GW or toward the Alt-40k community. If you're on the supporting side of Alt-40k, then you don't understand the frustration of looking for advice, lists, tips, Battle reports, etc, where we click on them and either find out that it's not 40k. The worst are the comments in forums, and after actual games, stating that a unit, list, or even a game that was just lost, as invalid because it isn't 'Competitive'. IMAGINE stealing the win away from your opponent because he outplayed you in 40k, just to have it invalidated because they don't modify the game to the point you do.

So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game. It's an honestly thought out opinion on how scrapping Alt-40k interference would allow GW to do what they've been doing for the good of the game, and as a result, the 40k community as a whole. A truly competitive event would have every army at a 50% chance of winning. Nothing the ITC is doing is having an impact on that, and there are no facts to support that any of the ITC changes are doing anything more than providing a place for those who dislike 40k. As a result, they aren't making any improvements to the game, or the community as a result.

If you truly feel that the ITC is the best system, then there is a home on FLG forums for those individuals. Please be respectful of others opinions when on a shared forum. This has been a home for everyone to discuss their hobby since as early as 4th if I remember correctly. Comments like yours, do nothing but show that the ITC community is exclusive, toxic, and isn't doing anything to improve the community.

[spoiler]

Well to be honest, most players who want to kill ITC format post nothing but toxic exclusiveness. Your post was literally the ONLY one I have read that had a good idea in it towards moving the goal posts as it were. They really should split up the LVO champs tournament into different formats since its grown so big. Any 3 day tournament that has more than 8 undefeated players on the third day is too large in my opinion. I absolutely love the suggestion of turning the LVO into a multiple format tournament. This is however a large increase in logistics for the organizers.

**Apple fox**

The Newman wrote:
Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.

This is always really sad :( That players would play a game they do not want to simply out of that or nothing choice. I often think it was the players saying nothing is wrong that ultimately killed 40k as a standard here. Nothing could be done to fix it as it was fine. Then just no one keep turning up.

We play what could only be described as a heavy modified version now when we do pull out 40k. And i think its similar to ITC, Its the fact that ITC can exist and so many players would choose it can only be explaned by the poor management of the system. 40k just is not really in a good place i think.

So for me. I would like to see.

- Clean up the rules, this is a tough one i think. CLeaning up the rules is a lot more than simple ballance, but its working out the scale the game is playing at. Marines are supposed to be tough, in comparison to most standard infantry. But when a player can just play 3 knights. There is only so much difference they can have. Now with primerius marines This line is even slimier.
Things like knights need to be expanded to require support, probably tanks and such should have facing as well. With rules that make them interesting to use and face.
I know GW like to Forge the Narrative, but the rule suck for it.

-Narrative, as said above. There is a lot more to good narritive rules than every min faction needs some snowflake rule. Often these would be set by good balance and encouragement to use units fit for the chapter on the standard battlefield, rather than snowflake rules that depending what color you paint your minis can determine wether your whole army is good or bad.
But its also about know the setting and using the advantages that good setting can bring, Where does each marine chapter operate, who are they fighting against the most. Why would they participate and what difficulty do they have in a battle that is unreasonably far away from there home ground. Even just getting around is a story.

This also comes into having a good standard of play, A standard that is fair and as well balanced to every army and each one is set to that expected battlefield. Thought from the design team on good terrain is a must. But also Expansion to the standard and away from the standard that is well thought out, and above all fun out of the box.
This can be less balanced from the standard if its offering fun alternatives. Things like death worlds, city fight and night fighting go here. With war gear for every race for these alternate environments. If the standard is good, then its much more a easy sell for the players to other players to try alternatives.
These can also have rules for fighting in Hives, tunnels and other area where tanks cannot get to. Units on foot, And the smaller walkers the heavy units of these games.

Last, less a focus on Imperium stuff. I think it would go a long way to make players feel like they actually matter, if they got a few minis every year. even a single release in a big box can be huge.
This i think would help as well, Put a elder character in with a space marine army against Tyranids or Chaos. With special rules for the scenario in the box, and rules for standard play as well

-better thought out terrain, they have some good stuff. But some things i just cannot help but think they went though design on auto pilot for.

-good quality rules help me as a narrative player, As much as good quality writing does. And i think both could be improoved if they where willing to sit down and ask themselves about what they want from the game and the setting. Things like flyers, if they want these on the battlefields of 40k, then they need to act like them. And give fair access access to all unit types, With any force that breaks from the norm having counters as well as weakness that keep them Fun as well as ballanced.

**Akar**

Eihnlazer wrote:
Well to be honest, most players who want to kill ITC format post nothing but toxic exclusiveness.

I haven't seen any posts to support this. There is nothing exclusive about wanting to play 40k right out of the BRB/CA Missions since that's how the game is written. That said it's not unreasonable to believe that there are forum-ites that would act this way. I confident that there are pro-ITC players who struggle to get practice games in for when they're planning on attending an event. Outside of this, I can't think of any other time where they would be excluded. To be clear, this isn't something I do. I've had a few players over the years ask me to practice for the ITC with them, which is why I dislike the format.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Your post was literally the ONLY one I have read that had a good idea in it towards moving the goal posts as it were.

Thank You

Eihnlazer wrote:
They really should split up the LVO champs tournament into different formats since its grown so big. Any 3 day tournament that has more than 8 undefeated players on the third day is too large in my opinion. I absolutely love the suggestion of turning the LVO into a multiple format tournament. This is however a large increase in logistics for the organizers.

Yes, and no. Yes it would be more effort on the Tournament Organizers, but I don't think the logistics of it would be that problematic. Assigning TO's to specific players would ease the responsibility. ITC TO, for example would be responsible for the first 200 players, and would only have to keep an eye on their 100 tables. The 40k TO would be responsible for their 200 players, and wouldn't have to cover more than their 100 tables, etc. Separate registration tables for the individual events would also speed up that nightmare for those that don't pre-reg. The biggest logistical nightmare would be setting up a sign-up system to put people into the requested format. While setting up a flat number of spots would make it easy, I don't think it would be worth it. You'd easily end up with players being forced to play in a non-preferred format if their preferred format sold out, but they still want to go.

Keeping on topic though, the points would also factor in to the logistics of it, and a GW Tournament kit would clarify that. The upcoming NAGT is going to be 1750 for example, something that has been called for several times by those within and outside of the ITC, and something else the ITC refuses to adjust to. It wouldn't be unreasonable for an EW format to go to 1500. This would address several other issues that the ITC has as well. Players who struggle with keeping times reasonable, those that rush to acquire/paint models, or just want a simpler option / less stressful option, would have options. The smaller games could even allow more free time between games to simply walk around and enjoy the event.

While I'm happy you think this is a good idea, it creates a bigger mess after the events are over. You'd need separate tracking for players doing well in the 40k format, separate from those doing the Alt-40k format. Lists would then have to be marked for which format they succeeded/failed in. Players rankings would have to be sorted accordingly as well. Which is why I still support the idea of the ITC format disappearing and we go back to one, single 40k format that reflects the 40k community as a whole.

**Karol**

pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.

**pm713**

Karol wrote:
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.

Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.

**The Newman**

pm713 wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.

But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

But those things are not always applicable. I don't know about Martel, but I don't hate the lore or the game, I'm just bothered by how bad GW seems to be at writing coherent rules and balancing factions. Especially for how long they've been at this.

And in my case it's not the LGS group being inflexible, it's that 40k is on a day I can get to and the other system I'd like to try out (x-wing) is on a day where I have another commitment. And the 40k group is pretty flexible about trying different formats within the 40k rule set, but sunk costs are a thing and we're mostly invested enough to make switching systems sound painful.

**Karol**

pm713 wrote:
Karol wrote:
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.

Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.

I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.

**Martel732**

8th has a lot of improvements over 7th, but drawing the short straw again is definitely taxing.

To reiterate, GW rule coherency, balancing AND lore accuracy are all major sticking sticking points.

**pm713**

Karol wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Karol wrote:
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.

Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.

I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.

Well if you don't spend X amount on Warhammer in a month then that's X more you have in general, that you can spend on a different hobby.

**K9ofChaos**

For new factions, I would like to see the Men of Iron get their own codex.

As for specialist games, I would like to see the return of Battlefleet Gothic in the tabletop format.

**Karol**

pm713 775499 10465954 wrote:
Well if you don't spend X amount on Warhammer in a month then that's X more you have in general, that you can spend on a different hobby.

Ok, I get that. But how does that help someone who is not spending money on warhammer? if the hobby money is close to zero or zero, then with the money your not going to start any other hobby with it.

**Peregrine**

Akar wrote:
Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?

Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?

So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game.

Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.

**Racerguy180**

Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

Akar wrote:
Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?

Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?

So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game.

Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.

Unfortunately competitive & ITC seem to go hand in hand. At least here in the USA.

**Akar**

Peregrine wrote:
Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?

- There isn't an Alt-Narrative 40k community.
- They aren't trying to be something they're not, with Narrative players not trying to prove they're better than other Narrative players.
- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.
- There is already a plethora of Narrative play options provided by GW, and don't really need a 'Narrative' kit/packet like the Competitive players DO need.
- The Narrative community isn't split, welcomes everyone who wants to play, and does in fact, represent what the 40k community should aspire to.

Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.

Really confused by your statement here. Are you suggesting I attempted to move the goal posts to facilitate a lie?

Racerguy180 wrote: Unfortunately competitive & ITC seem to go hand in hand. At least here in the USA.

THIS is the lie, not the other way around. The short of it is that we need to kill the current 'Competitive 40k' to make way for 'Competitive 40k' to return. When we hear the term 'Competitive 40k', the first thing that pops into our head is ITC/Alt-40k, which is the problem. One that would be addressed by the release of a Tournament kit/packet from GW. It's long overdue, but the Alt-40k/ITC community needs to update their format, and not the other way around.

Which is ALL I would like to see happen in 2019-2020. I would REALLY like to see the competitive 40k community to not be so split. It's clear at this point that GW is going to have to do it, and it's my hope they will. It's also clear that the ITC won't do anything about it, and there is no need for them to for the reasons listed in the above post. If the ITC wants to continue being a positive force for changing 40k, then they need to start playing it.

**DeathKorp_Rider**

Hereticus Militarum codex would be lovely

**Kelligula**

New Guard Regiment, Flyers, and Tanks in plastic. Overhaul Eldar and Dark Eldar. No more finecast.

Killteam Boxset with Eldar Ninjas vs Ork Pirates.

**Sir Heckington**

Hoping for Lost and the Damned. BSF is giving me more hope than I probably should have.

**Peregrine**

Akar wrote:
- There isn't an Alt-Narrative 40k community.

There absolutely is. Many, if not most, narrative players use custom characters/missions/etc that are not GW's official content. There is zero difference between ITC creating custom missions and a group of narrative players doing the exact same thing.

- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.

Lolwut? I've been told many times by narrative players that they do it better than I do. Unless all you mean here is a ridiculous nitpick that ITC is an organized group while narrative players aren't as well organized on a national level?

Really confused by your statement here. Are you suggesting I attempted to move the goal posts to facilitate a lie?

I'm saying that the original post I was replying to said "kill competitive 40k" and you have moved the goalposts to "kill ITC". Whether or not your claim about ITC is true it is a very different argument to make, one that is much weaker than the initial attack on all competitive 40k.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akar wrote:
When we hear the term 'Competitive 40k', the first thing that pops into our head is ITC/Alt-40k, which is the problem.

Why? If ITC is a better format than RAW 40k then why is this a problem? So far you seem to be obsessing over whether or not "competitive 40k" is straight out of the rulebook and saying very little about whether or not ITC's changes are good for competitive play.

**Argive**

As per tradition, every such thread needs the obvious: Less imperium, More xenos & Plastic aspects/new aspects. Maybe someone at GW will stumble across dakka....

**Jidmah**

Karol wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Karol wrote:
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.

If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.

Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.

I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.

There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.

It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.

**Not Online!!!**

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Hereticus Militarum codex would be lovely

HE LET'S MENTION 13 Full differing units off them in Vigilus ablaze, no description what the sods were doing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Hoping for Lost and the Damned. BSF is giving me more hope than I probably should have.

Atleast the dude with the assultrifle finally got a stock.

**Karol**

Jidmah wrote:

There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.

It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.

I awas aksing more in general, not about Grey Knights, plus no one wants to buy them I asked around here. Maybe parts, but that is like not even 1/10th of what it cost me.

Am also not sure how MtG is free, you still have to buy the card to play, and you can't play tournaments without protectors. I mean I guess you could play highlander and have friends give you cards, but then one as well may have friends give them a w40k army to play with. Kind of a requires having good friends.
Plus lime the other person here the games played here are w40k and AoS, and AoS is like 7 people going to tournaments in bigger cities. There was also infinity, but the people playing it moved because they left for school, and warmahorde dies thanks to tha company making them not sending models to sell to our part of the world.

**Wibe**

I dont want to see 9th for years! Continue to update the game and balance the rules through faqs.
And with the recent nerfs to knights and eldar, the game is closer to being balanced than it have ever been.

To be honest, the only reason to update the game would be to change the concept of "I go, you go". Alternate activations, or simultaneous activations of turns were casualties are removed (both players having the shooting, psychic, cc phase at the same time, so casualties are removed after everything have activated).

**SHUPPET**

Akar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?

What the.... LOL

This argument is so dishonest that I can't take anything you say seriously.

Nobody is EXCLUDED by itc play, narrative play still exists right along next to it and isn't removed by ITC's existence if you wish to play it.

On the reverse side, you are literally asking for a game mode removed because YOU don't like it even though others do.

Just get over it dude. Honestly, this is just sad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akar wrote:

- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.

There is literally a group of people who call themselves "the narrative guys" and advertise that they do it best. And, after seeing their events, I'm very much inclined to agree with them, it was incredible and just completely dripping in the essence of Warhammer. But the point is you don't really know what you're talking about.

**Jidmah**

Karol wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.

It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.

I awas aksing more in general, not about Grey Knights, plus no one wants to buy them I asked around here. Maybe parts, but that is like not even 1/10th of what it cost me.

Ebay is a thing. Getting $200 for a half-decent army should be no problem if you want to.

Am also not sure how MtG is free, you still have to buy the card to play, and you can't play tournaments without protectors. I mean I guess you could play highlander and have friends give you cards, but then one as well may have friends give them a w40k army to play with. Kind of a requires having good friends.

You probably have missed Magic Arena. Free to play magic for everyone that owns a windows device.

Plus lime the other person here the games played here are w40k and AoS, and AoS is like 7 people going to tournaments in bigger cities. There was also infinity, but the people playing it moved because they left for school, and warmahorde dies thanks to tha company making them not sending models to sell to our part of the world.

From your stories, not playing with the people in your area would probably be one of the best choices. There also are plenty of hobbies which are not tabletop gaming.

**Mr Morden**

Wibe wrote:
I dont want to see 9th for years! Continue to update the game and balance the rules through faqs.
And with the recent nerfs to knights and eldar, the game is closer to being balanced than it have ever been.

To be honest, the only reason to update the game would be to change the concept of "I go, you go". Alternate activations, or simultaneous activations of turns were casualties are removed (both players having the shooting, psychic, cc phase at the same time, so casualties are removed after everything have activated).

Agreed with all points