Guest Editorial: The Ork Blues: To Keep the Green Tide or Not?

sad ork

A guest editorial by HotSauceMan: pros and cons of keeping the Green Tide formation.

Just recently Orks got a reprint of the Waaagh! Ghazghkull supplement. This is one of the first time not only has a supplement has been reprinted, but one within the same edition. It gave a lot of cool stuff to the army, but it also took away their favorite formation, The Green Tide. For those not in the know, the formation was anywhere to 100 orks to 300 that formed an entire unit. This thing was an entire army for many Ork players and other than Zhardsnark bikers or hitting your opponent with a 2×4, Orks didn’t have much in the way of competitive armies. Full disclosure I’m not an Ork player, but I think that gives me a position to look at this objectively. I went through some forums and trolled the comment sections of videos to saw some of the arguments people where using and decided to do a Point/Counter point to this debate.


Arguments AGAINST keeping The Green Tide

Point: It is an old entry and like many of the others, it is no longer valid.

This is arguably the best reason for no longer keeping the formation around. Stuff from old books are no longer kept around. Just ask Dark Eldar how much they miss Vect or The Baron (I think they had other characters too, but no one ever used them so I don’t know). But we accepted that they were gone when the new book dropped and just shrugged our shoulders. It’s a fact of life in this game that the new replaces the old and we lose things.

Counterpoint: Yes it is an old entry, but it is still a Dataslate and those are independent.

Dataslates are now the new thing for armies, if we assume they are actually independent of their codex or host book. Numerous campaign books and White Dwarf has shown us that this may very well be the case, one example is the new Ironpriest that replaces the old one. You don’t need a “host” book for them, really. The Green Tide should still be allowed for this reason. The reason for this is that the data slate should be considered independent from the host book.

Point: If the Orks get that back, then I should get X back as well.

So, if Orks are allowed to have old stuff back, than so should the other armies as well. That because another army got something back, so should all the others. Over the years, plenty of armies have gotten invalidated and I’m sure people would love to have them back too. The argument that once we let one army have something, then all the other armies should get it as well comes up frequently. This is a pretty fair statement, all armies should get the same treatment and treated the same, regardless of how they fair competitively.

Counterpoint: Just because one army gets something back, doesn’t mean all will

This is really just a slippery slope argument in all reality. It says that because one thing will happen, it will lead to other things happening then end up where things have snowballed out of control. We have all seen this argument before, when the ITC community voted to change the 2+ reroll save and Invisibility. Both times these where met with outcries of people saying the game we would be playing would be “ReeceHammer” or “FrontlineHammer”. But since then, very little changes have been made to core rules other than to clarify rulings. I do not think we need to worry about a snowball effect here.


Arguments FOR keeping the Green Tide

Point: GW said I can keep the army, they said you could use either book

At one point, when GW heard the backlash over the fact that The Green Tide got let out of the book, they did the simplest and most GW answer you ever heard: use whatever book you want. So if you want to use the 1st edition book, that is fine, if you want to use the 2nd edition it’s fine, just make sure to keep giving us money, plebs.

Counterpoint: That is a standard GW response and isn’t actually the rules team.

We all know that GW customer service has very little to actually do with the rules team. That this is just the standard response that the company gives whenever there is a rules debate or rules questions: Do what you want. This very much sounds like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The problem with this response is that it just reeks of laziness and being uncommitted.

Point: You are going to be invalidating my army.

This is a very good point. The Green Tide is in itself an entire army. It is also an expensive one, 100+ Ork boys is not cheap. Hell, painting that amount of Orks is a good long project. Just thinking about that is enough to get me to drop a brick. I commend the Ork players who have done that.

Counterpoint: Armies are already invalidated or rendered unusable in the ITC

All of this talk is really for the ITC, in your own home or in your FLGS you can do what you want. But in the ITC armies are already invalidated. One of my favorite formations is the Heavy Retribution Cadre. It’s a unit of Ghostkeels and 2 units of Stormsurges. It causes armies to not run and halve their charge distance. But ITC only allows one unit of Lords of war outside of Knight armies, so I can’t take it. I know another person who has 3 Wraith Knights, his army is invalidated by the ITC. Those are pricier than the Green Tide is. That and the very fact we have a point system means you can’t bring everything you own. All armies are invalidated in some way.

Point: It is a unique formation that brings something unseen to the competitive scene.

The point of this argument is that a lot of the armies we tend to see around the competitive scene are just MSU spam lists. This is true, 45 warp spiders, Battle Company, ScatPacks and many other lists. But the Green Tide was unique. It was an entire army consisting mostly of just one entire unit of hundreds of Ork boys. That was awesome. It was fun to play with, and fun to play against. You were able to actually kill stuff and feel like you were fighting an actual fluffy army and not one of those Eldar allied with Space Marines allied with Tau armies.

Counterpoint: All armies can have unique builds.

All armies can field a variety of units in several different combinations. But that doesn’t make them effective, so you don’t see them as often. It just so happened that it was both effective and unique. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of unique army builds out there: the day of the netlist is over.

What do you think - written with chalk on a blackboard

So, there you go, several arguments both for and against keeping this army, along with their merits and demerits.  This isn’t meant for me to give my opinion, because I’m guessing you all really don’t care. This is meant to give you an idea of why people are arguing about this and some reasons why it might be important. If this is put to a vote, or if it is just decided on, then have this in mind to understand some things.

What do you all think?

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

43 Responses to “Guest Editorial: The Ork Blues: To Keep the Green Tide or Not?”

  1. DevianID March 25, 2016 12:41 am #

    While I feel for green horde players, stuff changes all the time, like the old triple eldar wraith knight list when they were a heavy choice. Being unable to field 200+ dollars of nice models and needing 500 points in new eldar certianly rubbed some people wrong. Every book usually invalidates something, like how my dark angel terminator army became unplayable in the new book. The green tide is another example of this, and the green tide doesnt add anything to the competitive itc format to justify its continued existence. In friendly games you can still play it after all, and local events can choose to include it at will. That said, at LVO and BAO, there really isnt a need to single out green tide as allowable since it does not prevent a player from running 100 orks with standard list construction.

  2. Dan K March 25, 2016 1:50 am #

    Its a interesting argument both ways.

    I personally as a Ork player wouldn’t like to invalidate someones army they have spent that long in getting ready, but the game evolves and these things happen.
    I think that the can of worms you will be opening by allowing this will be to large, you are going to get people arguing for every single out of date formation/datasheet using the tide as a precedent.

    To give some context of where i am coming from – I used to have a green tide formation army and played in local tournaments. I am by no means on the level as the top 10 ITC players, however these kind of rulings doesnt effect them as they wont be taking them anyway.

    Running a Ork army in a competitive environment is not about smash face and I can see both points as the formation is for many people the way Orks “should be” played. Orks need so much help to feel competitive for myself. Running this formation in a timed event is a test in patience and speed for myself rather that a test of generalship.

    Just my thoughts 🙂

  3. abusepuppy March 25, 2016 3:00 am #

    The thing about calling something a “slippery slope” is that it implies that there is no continuum of events or associations. However, that’s not true in this case- there is no real argument you can make for the Green Tide that doesn’t also apply to every other datasheet in every previously-printed book as well. It’s a unique build? There is nothing about this specific case that is unique in any way, except the fact that the particular formation happened to be popular enough that it has raised some outcry (not that such a thing hasn’t happened before- remember the people who wanted to continue using the 6E Eldar book when the 7E one came out?)

    I get that people aren’t happy with it vanishing. But like the article says: stuff changes all the time. Armies get invalidated. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. I have yet to see anything that makes this case different than all the others.

  4. Vercingatorix March 25, 2016 5:13 am #

    Allow it until the Ork codex, if it is not in the codex then remove it entirely.

    This addresses a lot of the concerns of the “slippery slope” and “That’s not fair” crowd. Not every formation removed is the oldest formation in their faction. There is also a time limit on life. I’m totally fine with it being removed if its not in the new codex or released in a white dwarf between now and then.

    I think that this is a fair compromise. It gives it a new lease on life, but it is a lease with a definite end date.

    • abusepuppy March 25, 2016 5:54 am #

      I’m not sure how that addresses the concerns of, say, a Dark Eldar player that is unhappy they can’t use Vect anymore. If the DE player says “Well I should be allowed to continue using Vect until the next codex comes out and then if he’s not in that one I’ll stop,” how is that different?

      • elphilo March 25, 2016 8:42 am #

        Right. To allow old things that haven’t been reprinted we should allow all things in.

        Its unfortunately a fact of this game. At the drop of a hat your army can be invalidated and you have to start from square one. By letting one old thing in you’ve set precident to allow all other old things.

        I’m 100% sure most old time Chaos players would love to see their 3.5 codex with the 3.5 bloodletters, daemonettes on steeds and 3.5 summoning. . . .

        • westrider March 25, 2016 4:54 pm #

          I actually went back and looked through that Dex again a while ago, and honestly, I feel like overall it would be a bit under the power curve at this point. The Siren Prince is the only thing I look at in there and really worry about.

          • abusepuppy March 25, 2016 11:10 pm

            Yeah, it was brutal at the time but there’s a lot of things around these days that just blow it away. Like, one Knight would just kinda walk all over most CSM lists from back in the day.

      • Vercingatorix March 25, 2016 8:51 am #

        So first of all, things are different now, GW has a much more rapid release schedule.

        Secondly, I’m not suggesting that an entry be allowed to continue for the entire duration of a codex cycle. I’m suggesting that GW may be moving the Green tide from a supplement to a main codex formation. A codex that rumors suggest will be coming soon.

        If it wasn’t the case that the codex should be released relatively shortly I wouldn’t suggest this.

        I think it hinges on the near end date. It’s not asking for an indefinite continuation. In the case of Vect that would have been asking for what? at least 5 years of continued use. I think asking for 3 months is a pretty huge difference.

  5. Julio Rodriguez March 25, 2016 6:19 am #

    Hopefully GW releases a digital datasheet soon like the advent calendar ones. Something like the Tau one that got updated with the new codex.

  6. Freeman March 25, 2016 7:33 am #

    I’d just wait a couple of weeks. If GW holds true and answers those Facebook question as an official FAQ loads of these conundrums become mute. If the official FAQ says you can use the formation then that’s that surely.

    It’s been asked loads of times in that thread.

  7. Chris March 25, 2016 9:00 am #

    Personally I would like to keep it and that’s not just because I have accumulated and love to run 300 boys. The difference between this and say vect is we subsequently got and lost the formation in one edition. There were rules printed for this edition and then they disappeared in the new one which is odd to say the least. If it were edition to edition this discussion wouldn’t even be occurring but the fact that it was made and nixed in the same edition is different. That’s my two cents anyway ill keep playing it for fun but if it isn’t allowed in ITC I will just use my tempestus since that was the plan anyway since there is a lot less to transport.

  8. tag8833 March 25, 2016 9:06 am #

    I am an Ork player who has indeed painted a Green Tide, and run it competitively a number of times.

    I am sad to see the formation go, and hope that GW rereleases it in white dwarf like they did the Looted Wagon. In the mean time, it is OK with me that it isn’t a legal list. I’m sad that many of my well painted Ork Boyz will spend so much time on the shelf, but in a game like this, we need to be prepared to adapt and move on when updates come our way.

  9. winterman March 25, 2016 9:16 am #

    Greentide is still around and current in Apoc is it not? I think win win would be to just allow the 6ed Apoc formations that weren’t recreated in newer codexes (or atleast review them and decide if they work with current rules). Now its not just ork players that benefit, but a whole list of codexes that are waiting for the 7ed formation treatment.

    Also we no longer have a clear definition of what is and isn’t ‘current’ or legal. Like at what point is Skyhammer a valid formation? It is already out of print, so why is it legal and not Iyanden supplement? Or the GW exclusive booklet that has KDK hunting pack — will it be legal for ever? Its these sorts of issues the competitive community will have to address at some point and it may be painful. Anyone who had armies from Eye of Terror Codex can attest to that…

    • Freeman March 25, 2016 5:53 pm #

      Jesus no.

      Have you seen the slaanesh all charges of deep strike one!!

  10. fluger March 25, 2016 9:25 am #

    I play horde orks, but don’t use the Green Tide. I actually don’t think it is that great anyway and I don’t think losing it is all that terrible.

    Try running the list as 3 units of 30 boyz. See how you do.

    • VonCrown March 25, 2016 12:14 pm #

      I’m in this camp, though I admit I don’t play orks. You can make a similar list in terms of number of bodies spread over a few units in the new formation, which has the same “waaagh every turn” benefit and gives you more flexibility on the table. Honestly, I never understood how anyone could actually run green tide in the first place.

      • fluger March 25, 2016 2:10 pm #

        It really has no chance at winning big tournaments for a variety of reasons, but its fun to screw up battle companies banking on grav.

  11. Jural March 25, 2016 11:10 am #

    Personally, I have no issue keeping it. The ITC can just vote on it and keep it legal.

    It would be silly to just blanket say “All old sources are usable”, but allowing them case by case based on community vote (which I mean to be the obvious evolution of asking your opponent before a game, but for the tournament scene) seems reasonable.

    Ideally of course GW rules on it. I think it’s pretty lame they left it out.

  12. Gunfex March 25, 2016 11:49 am #

    I want the Eldar Iyanden supplement back in. It wasn’t even replaced by a new supplement, GW simply stopped printing it. At the time, people were fine to say “if GW doesn’t sell it [rules] anymore, it’s not current and thus, not legal”.

    It is far from game breaking (basically just lets you use Wraithguard as troops as you used to be able to and you can do almost the same thing with a Pale Court in IA11), it’s fluffy and not contradicted by anything in a new publication. I don’t remember if there is a reference to a slightly differently titled Eldar codex, but is that any worse or more invalidating than a dataslate not being printed in a NEW book that replaces the book such dataslate was originally printed in? I think not.

    Anyways. I think this is one of the better examples of something that just got lost as GW moved on. What will happen if GW officially discontinues their Sister of Battle line? Not that a ton of people play them anymore (maybe the same number as dedicated Green Tide players??), but man I can just see the public sympathy and the cries of people wanting to allow them to still be a legal army forever. If it was put to a vote people would probably allow it too – relatively harmless and a nostalgic favourite for many. But then, you should honestly also put some of the nasty competitive stuff up for vote and see what the public wants on the other end of the spectrum when it will actually affect competitive tournament play. Or draw a hard line and stop playing favourites.

    • Jural March 25, 2016 3:39 pm #

      Kroot and Speed Freaks come to mind for lists which just dropped off the map and weren’t kept alive by the ITC, but of course these also dropped with edition changes, so it’s a lot more difficult to keep using them.

      I am actually surprised to learn the Iyanden supplement is no longer allowed, I guess the thinking is that the Codex has been updated since? But oddly that would not work with the Tau Firebase Cadre…

      This brave new world of rapid codex releases (except for Chaos) is really confusing

      • westrider March 25, 2016 5:02 pm #

        As I understand it, the reason for dropping Iyanden was that it referred to “Codex: Eldar”, and not “Codex: Eldar Craftworlds”, not just that the Codex had been updated.

        • Gunfex March 26, 2016 9:23 am #

          That is true. And by “RAW”, that should mean the Iyanden supplement refers to a book that no longer exists. But logically, all of the models referred to in Iyanden still exist and no specific rules are referred to, nor points ink used – everything references the Codex entry. So one could argue it’s a semantics issue and just inconsistent or changing naming practices.

          On the other side of the coin, the “Tau Firebase Support Cadre” still exists, even though the new codex includes an extremely similar formation, the “Firebase Support Cadre” using the same models (with a slightly different set of requirements and rules). It seems obvious that a formation in the Tau codex doesn’t need to be clarified with the word “Tau”, but many view them as existing together due to the different name and rules. RAW? Sure. RAI? Seems like a replacement to me. And if we treat a differently named product as a unique set of rules, when do we draw the line? If they change the name of a codex, is the previous codex still legal because it wasn’t strictly replaced? Even if certain rules are updated or changed? No, logic tell us to infer that the old book was replaced. Perhaps the same should be said for dataslate formations. Except since they were not sold but freely released we cannot tell when GW no longer “supports” them, and GW will always say do what you want and use what you want. It’s honestly so messy and inconsistent it hurts to think about it.

          I don’t really care either way about these specific instances, but I do care about the precedent set and the way these decisions will be made in the future. Just IMO, if something is no longer currently supported by GW with rules, including Iyanden and Green Tide, it should no longer be tournament legal in a broad sense. Individual TOs can always do *whatever they want* of course, but it should be seen as an exception to the general rule.

  13. Chris Price March 25, 2016 12:05 pm #

    I say keep it. If the ITC says no, then fuck them and everything they stand for.

    • abusepuppy March 25, 2016 3:17 pm #

      It’s good that you’re open to compromise and discussion.

      • jural March 25, 2016 3:36 pm #

        Assuredly he is also open to civil discourse presented in a polite fashion

        • Chris Price March 25, 2016 3:47 pm #

          I am, but in this case I’m really not. Orks have been shafted enough by GW, they don’t need it from the TO’s as well.

          • Luke March 26, 2016 3:54 pm

            I can agree with this gentleman. I, too, will always be very reasonable and nice until things don’t go my way.

            I will always let you do whatever you want, as long as it’s also what I want.

            You are open to have whatever opinions you want, as long as you understand that my opinions are right and yours are wrong if they disagree with mine.

            On topic, I feel bad for Orks and wouldn’t mind if the formation was kept, but it’s just the way things change. Eventually, everything changes. The formation always felt more like an apoc formation, and it’s still totally useable there or in narrative games/events.

    • Jason March 25, 2016 8:29 pm #

      As uncompromising as you are eloquent. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

      • Vercingatorix March 27, 2016 6:30 pm #

        Don’t you mean “As compromising as you are elegant?” lol

  14. Dakkafang March 25, 2016 3:52 pm #

    I say leave it. It is a formation printed in a 7th edition book and re printed in another 7th edition book.

    If it was a 6th ed supplement and was left out of a 7th ed update, I’d say it’s gone. It’s not it is an old outdated formation/unit/character from a previous edition, it’s still technically a 7th ed formation/dataslate.

  15. Chris Price March 25, 2016 4:15 pm #

    Alright, calmed down significantly since noon.

    You’re gonna see a lot of repeat due to the fact that the author has already stated most of my arguments for keeping the Green Tide. And like him, I don’t play Orks.

    I’m honestly all for keeping the Green Tide. As HSM1 said, it does provide something different in the current tournament meta of MSU. Something I believe that is in fact needed. As the lists in the tournament meta (something I admittedly care nothing for as I really only intend to take part in 30k tourneys in the future) start to lock up into builds meant to take down other MSU armies, a horde style army such as the Green Tide will force those with MSU style lists to adapt their lists to be able to deal with large numbers of infantry as opposed to a small squad of marines or warp spiders.

    There is additionally the fact that both Ghazghull supplements are 7th edition supplements of the same name.

    Ultimately, my argument is based on the fact that while I never intend to play Orks, I do love to play them, and in fact the only games I’ve really enjoyed in the last two years have been against either Orks, and I would want to see my favorite opposing army have every option available to them.

    GW has shafted the Orks enough. Let them have this one.

    • Freeman March 25, 2016 6:02 pm #

      First things bud. Chill it out. Nobody is reading your reasonable post ‘cos you went keyboard warrior internet nasty.

      People keep likening this to iyanden. Not the same. GW stated that iyanden, clan racaun and sentinels of terror are still perfectly valid,in a published doc (the warhammer app), just after 7th came out.

      I’m more than happy for greentide to carry on being a thing, and still believe it’s arguable if it’s gone. Bud jeez. The hate is too far. It’s toy soldiers.

      Last point. Is anyone actually wanting to run green tide?its fun (for a game or two) but it’s still not exactly warp spider good.

      • Gunfex March 26, 2016 9:36 am #

        Sentinels of Terra and Clan Raukaan were indeed singled out by GW through the Warhammer App as still valid. I took a screen shot even, I believe. They are also still being sold by GW.

        Iyanden is not, and I do not recall ever seeing a post about it. I’ve read all the Warhammer App posts since it was initially released, but if you have a screen shot to prove it I would love to see it (not in a challenging way, I would actually love to see it)!

        Pretty sure Iyanden was never clarified by GW and does not exist anymore.

        Another issue people have not mentioned a lot is availability, particularly for tournaments. Are TOs going to provide free PDFs of the data slate? Are PDFs of rules allowed as the authoritative source in any event? Note that no one can ever legally purchase the rules for the Green Tide ever again (until GW itself releases it). A new player will not know it exists. Even older players who just aren’t familiar with Orks will not know it exists if they flipped through all of the relevant rule books and sources. This isn’t even like the Warhammer World exclusive rules for Imperial’s and Chaos, which are extremely difficult to get, but not impossible – I think ITC allowed these formations (those that fit in the comp scheme) without the official rules? But yeah, good luck with little Timmy, “Oh what are you playing?” “It’s the Green Tide, you can’t get the rules anymore and you have probably never seen it, but yeah, it’s cool”.

      • Codi March 26, 2016 6:37 pm #

        I would like to still play the Green Tide. It is as competive as anything else the orks have.

        I do have a painted tide, and I was testing a new version of it the week before the new supplement came out.

  16. Ming March 25, 2016 7:15 pm #

    Classically once a codex was replaced, it has typically been invalidated for tournament use. All of that was in the day when codex supplements, campaign supplements, and such did not exist. In this case we are not talking about a unit or model, but a formation / detachment. Considering that players are using campaign sources in events, and there are seemingly no real restrictions, I’d say let all formations/detachments/data slates be used unless it is replaced by a newer one with the same name, or its special rules are invalidated be a newer edition. That would go for all forms, all factions. Frankly, I have only played vs the ork green tide once or twice. Those boys can be utilized in big mobs from the new supplement, just by reorganizing them and ending up with a list for suited for today’s formats. The newer formations and sources have better and stronger effects than the older stuff, and the older stuff won’t benefit from decurion style bonuses. Overall though, it is the TO’s responsibility to decide what is allowed in their local event….

  17. Hiveminded March 26, 2016 7:04 am #

    Let the green skins keep their tide. I feel horrible for any player who painted up 100 infantry models only to have the list invalidated.

  18. adam Fasoldt March 27, 2016 8:16 am #

    As an Ork player, I would vote NO to the old Green tide. It sets a bad precedent.

    Players lose the “good” way to play their models all the time. The fact is that you can still use 60+ of them in the new Ork Combi-Detachment regardless of which Core you use. Rip off the arms on the rest of them and make them Tankbustas. Long-time Ork players should be used to repurposing models from time to time.

    Boyz are supposed to be the core of an Ork army, not Meganobz. I don’t feel bad for anyone who didn’t already have 100 Boyz in their Ork army. 😛

  19. xthexclincherx March 28, 2016 4:53 am #

    For anyone still on the fence, or to leaning towards keeping it, just think about this…

    What happens when they replace the “Adamantine Lance” formation with a version that is not good… would you be fine with Imperial Knight players use the old (very good) version of that formation?

    Permitting the use of “outdated” or “replaced” rules, formations, books, etc. sets a bad precedent.

  20. Brian Richards March 28, 2016 12:09 pm #

    I’d be more open to letting them keep it, if they didn’t already benefit from out of date rules with their super discount Stompa. This is getting into some pretty scary favoritism territory. There are a lot of struggling codexes much worse off than orks who aren’t getting any attention on how to make their life easier.

    • Reecius March 28, 2016 12:28 pm #

      It’s certainly not playing favorites as the Big Mek Stompa is just playing the rule RAW, it was actually un-nerfing a previous ruling. This would be throwing them a bone, for sure, not because it is Orks per se but because the Green Tide formation is essentially an entire army and represents such an investment of time and energy to make.

  21. godfeast May 20, 2016 6:19 am #

    the green tide was the only formation actual boys could be used as the main combatant (as they should be in an army) because of the horrendous mob rule bs.

    if they had wanted to fix orks or make somethjng better,than simlly removing that garbsge rule or ag lesst nerfing it severly would improve all ork armies by 75% rihjt there and make this a moot point.

    thr fact thst they didnt and didcremove green tide is the straw that broke the camels back as far az im concerned. ive been playing sonce rogue trader days, have spent more on gw stuff than i care to think, and kn ghe past few years this company has so obviously stopped carkng about anythjng but gouging us for coin that its just not worth it anymore.

    screw them.

  22. godfeast May 21, 2016 8:26 am #

    the green tide was the only formation actual boys could be used as the main combatant (as they should be in an army) because of the horrendous mob rule bs.

    if they had wanted to fix orks or make something better,than simply removing that garbsge rule or ag least nerfing it severly would improve all ork armies by 75% right there and make this a moot point.

    the fact thst they didnt and did remove green tide is the straw that broke the camels back as far az im concerned. ive been playing since rogue trader, have spent more on gw stuff than i care to think, and in the past few years this company has so obviously stopped caring at all about anything but gouging us for coin that its just not worth it anymore.

    screw them.

Leave a Reply