Free Cities Abilities - What's the beef?

[CyderPirate]

1 minute ago, Double Misfire said:

Battletome: Chaos Dreadhold contains scenery warscrolls, not new allegiance abilities, something not typically used in matched play games unless the players or the TO have agreed to beforehand . Stop grasping at straws to try and score easy points, it undermines the rest of the argument you're putting forth.

I don't think that's fall equivalence at all. Scenery warscrolls see plenty of use. There's been several threads on this forum about the Balewind Vortex (how it should be fixed, why it should be scoured from existence etc etc etc) for example. That's the only one that really sees a lot of play cos the others are pretty rubbish, but they are getting used.

I also don't think that the fact they're allegiance abilities makes them any more tournament-worthy than the scenery warscrolls, scenarios, battalions etc from any of the other supplements.  It's just cherry-picking the elements you want to include. (And that's fine - TOs and gamers should feel free to dip into the supplements and pick what elements they want to include in their pack/use in their games)

Thing is, GW  has used the supplemental books to give us new rules using formats that we're already familiar with, but that doesn't necessarily make them any more or less 'legitimate' than any of the other rules in those books. For example, the Realmgate Wars books gave us scenarios, Battalions and the time of war rules. BT:Chaos Dreadhold gave us Scenery warscrolls, Firestorm gave us Allegiance Abilities, and army construction/campaign rules.  Open War cards gave us new scenarios. MP is giving us new scenarios, plus the actual Portents rules, and additional Spell Lores.

Each of those supplements uses existing formats (such as scenarios, warscolls, battalions etc) to add extra rules in a way that is intuitive and easy-to-use. That doesn't mean they're intended for Matched Play, or that TOs should be expected to adopt them. GW is just adding tools to our toolbox. There's nothing special about the Free Cities rules that warrants their inclusion over the battalions from RGW books, or the scenery from the Dreadhold expansion.

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Killax said:

Where does the assumption come from that the Free Cities are banned because of power level come from anyway? 

 

1 minute ago, Double Misfire said:

I really don't thi0nk it does at all. The majority of proponents of the Free City rules in this thread have been questioning why they've been banned from so many events at all?

 

Exactly. The whole point of this thread is to explore and possibly understand the reasoning that has led to Free Cities allegiance abilities being dismissed by certain sections of the community (not just tournament bans). My stated contention is that they should be treated equally with all other allegiance abilities. The onus in this discussion is therefore on those who disagree with me to state their case and offer rationally argued reasoning. One of the reasons offered (perhaps not in this thread, but certainly elsewhere) is that Free Cities abilities represent 'something extra for free', which then touches on issue of competitive advantage and 'power level'. So this is clearly a valid and relevant aspect of this topic to look at. If people want to offer other arguments against Free Cities abilities (which they have) then I'll happily make my counterargument for those too (which I also have).

[Killax]

16 minutes ago, Double Misfire said:

Because the content you've described is scenery warscrolls, something not typically used for matched play/tournament games without the agreement of the participants as I'd stated in my previous post. The battleplans and Path to Glory tables contained in battletomes aren't used in matched play games either so you don't make a very good point.

The Firestorm allegiance abilities aren't specifically stated as campaign content, they just exist in a campaign sourcebook, so it's a bit of a grey area, but the general idea put out by GW on their community website articles covering the various Free Cities and the Warhammer TV streams when Firestorm launched was that players were free to use them in games outside of the Firestorm campaign.

Killax your entire post history is grasping at straws and trying to score easy points with a tall side of extreme rudeness. I haven't claimed that Firestorm allegiances have been banned from events because of any kind of assumed power level in this thread and only suggested that they could have originally been due to them essentially being "free bonus rules" on top of an existing faction allegiance before they were changed in the errata.

I'm sure 99% of competitive events won't be using the rules for guiding portents or playing games in the Realm of Death, I was asking if you felt the four Harbinger models should be banned from competitive play, what with their having debuted in a campaign sourcebook without "Battletome" printed on the cover.

I really don't think it does at all. The majority of proponents of the Free City rules in this thread have been questioning why they've been banned from so many events at all? 

Matched play is full of scenery, so there really is no reason to not use it for Matched play and Tournament games/events. Likewise Campaign content is however often used with agreement of the participants because Campaign content is designed with this in mind. Indeed, the Path to Glory, like the Firestorm Campaign isn't used often for Tournament games/events either.

Season of War Firestorm is specifically brought out as Campaign content. Because they are in a Campaign Sourcebook. It is not a grey area whatsoever. Several pieces of Age of Sigmar products cannot be used for Matched play, tournaments or events.

There is not an inch of rudeness, there is a lot of assumption comming from you personally and Jamie. Yes, the assumption of balance being a factor is one. Another part of rudeness is calling Free Cities shafted, suggesting anyone has a beef with Free Cities in the topic title and follow up with easy to score points of great looking armies that really are seperate from this discussion.

What I feel about the four Harbingers is that they are designed with Malign Portents in mind. Their ability to become a general (always) is bound to become an issue for several events because we now have several Allegiances and Warscrolls that are in conflict with that ability. Based on that alone they arn't great to directly port over for Matched play events and tournaments.

Lastly the reason why it is not used (banned implies it was around before) is because it stems from Campaign based content. No more, no less.

5 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

The whole point of this thread is to explore and possibly understand the reasoning that has led to Free Cities allegiance abilities being dismissed by certain sections of the community (not just tournament bans). My stated contention is that they should be treated equally with all other allegiance abilities.

Not all event organizers want to use Campaign content, or just a part of it. 

Likewise allowing Battletome Chaos Dreadhold can be done, but isn't done because it's content is made with a specific setting in mind. For Firestorm this focus was put on the Grand Allegiances and present a variant on them. A variant of the GA that only logically applied for the narrative of that campaign. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, CyderPirate said:

Each of those supplements uses existing formats (such as scenarios, warscolls, battalions etc) to add extra rules in a way that is intuitive and easy-to-use. That doesn't mean they're intended for Matched Play, or that TOs should be expected to adopt them. GW is just adding tools to our toolbox. There's nothing special about the Free Cities rules that warrants their inclusion over the battalions from RGW books, or the scenery from the Dreadhold expansion.

 

You've identified Killax's false equivalence, but you've missed your own! 

The battalions in the Realmgate Wars books and the warscrolls in Battletome: Chaos Dreadhold can't be used in Matched Play because they don't have a points value.  It's not even an option. So we have numerous examples of battalions, warscrolls, scenery, etc that absolutely cannot be used in Matched Play because the mechanisms needed to included them aren't there. Those things can only be used in Narrative Play or Open Play.

Free Cities allegiance abilities are different. Not only are they ready to be used in Matched Play in exactly the same way as any other allegiance abilities, but GW have explicitly stated that they are intended to be used for Matched Play.

So we have many examples of narrative resources that can't be used in Matched Play, set against a single example of a resource designed for all 3 ways to play that can be used in Matched Play, but which some people refuse to acknowledge. So there's your false equivalence.

[CyderPirate]

Allegiance Abilities are never  pointed.

Neither are the scenarios in those books, that doesn't make them any more or less appropriate for tournaments.

To summarise my position -

The Free Cities abilities aren't banned. They are an optional extra - like the Time of War rules etc - that TOs are simply not choosing to include.

 

 

[Killax]

21 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Free Cities allegiance abilities are different. Not only are they ready to be used in Matched Play in exactly the same way as any other allegiance abilities, but GW have explicitly stated that they are intended to be used for Matched Play.

They are not different at all, it is content created for a Firestorm Campaign product.

All Warscrolls that excist are ready to be used for Matched Play if a Tournament Organizer wishes to include them. Costs unrequired if all have acces to a piece.

Matched play does not equal Tournament events. In our local GW we will have Matched play MP events like we had Matched play Firestorm events. However neither are set to be used for a Tournament here because they are campaign content.

Likewise Battletome Chaos Dreadhold is great to use with campaigns, easy to include for Matched play. Yet they are excluded from tournaments too.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, CyderPirate said:

Allegiance Abilities are never  pointed.

Neither are the scenarios in those books, that doesn't make them any more or less appropriate for tournaments.

To summarise my position -

The Free Cities abilities aren't banned. They are an optional extra - like the Time of War rules etc - that TOs are simply not choosing to include.

 

 

 

But allegiance abilities of every type are an optional extra. Matched Play itself is an optional extra! So again, I have to come back to asking why allow some allegiance abilities but discriminate against others? Is it too much to ask for consistency from people?

It's as ridiculous as a tournament saying that it won't be using Time of War rules - but then saying that actually, unlike everyone else Seraphon players specifically will need to use the Time of War rules. Those Seraphon players would very rightly feel singled out and frustrated by the inconsistent application of the tournaments approach. Either everyone should be using Time of War rules or no-one should. Equally, either all allegiance abilities should be permitted, or none of them should. This is the level of nonsensical inconsistency that Free Cities players are expected to accept. It's very easy to dismiss that feeling of frustration and being marginalised when it's not the army that you care about.

[Sheriff]

City allegiances had to be banned as they were so powerful. There were Hammerhal armies stomping through tournaments, Wraithfleets making competative players cry.

Oh wait that never happened. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Killax said:

They are not different at all, it is content created for a Firestorm Campaign product.

All Warscrolls that excist are ready to be used for Matched Play if a Tournament Organizer wishes to include them. Costs unrequired if all have acces to a piece.

Matched play does not equal Tournament events. In our local GW we will have Matched play MP events like we had Matched play Firestorm events. However neither are set to be used for a Tournament here because they are campaign content.

Likewise Battletome Chaos Dreadhold is great to use with campaigns, easy to include for Matched play. Yet they are excluded from tournaments too.

Do you have any meaningful reason not to allow Free Cities abilities in a tournament? Other than just repeating 'but it's campaign content' as if that in itself is a good enough reason that requires no further explanation? Could you please clarify for the people at home why exactly allegiance abilities printed in a campaign book should be treated differently to allegiance abilities printed in a battletome? In what way exactly are they incompatible with tournament play? Please don't assume any special knowledge on my part - please feel free to explain your argument in full and precise detail as if I'm brand new to the world of wargames. I'm intrigued to see what this compelling argument actually is.

[Sheriff]

The balls on these TOs. Azyr says a list is legal, they decree it is not. 

"These uppity Grand Alliance players wanting to make their tier 4 lists into tier 3 - get out of my tournament! "

[Killax]

47 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Do you have any meaningful reason not to allow Free Cities abilities in a tournament? Other than just repeating 'but it's campaign content' as if that in itself is a good enough reason that requires no further explanation?

Could you please clarify for the people at home why exactly allegiance abilities printed in a campaign book should be treated differently to allegiance abilities printed in a battletome? In what way exactly are they incompatible with tournament play?

Please don't assume any special knowledge on my part - please feel free to explain your argument in full and precise detail as if I'm brand new to the world of wargames. I'm intrigued to see what this compelling argument actually is.

I have explained to you multiple times now why campaign content doesn't always translate well to matched play events. The reason in this case being that it's added content on top of a Grand Allegiance meaning that if players want to have acces to the full actual rules for the Season of War Firestorm rulesset they need to A. Have knowledge of the product (it was 2017's campaign), B. Be aware of all future campaign content releases that might be included and C. Have to be capable to obtain this product in non-digital form because GW's app for ease of use doesn't have it.
Likewise Battletome Chaos Dreadholds isn't used. Scenery does not have to have point costs to be legally used in Age of Sigmar Tournaments either, the Ferulent Gnarlmaw is currently used in several competitive veents allready and doesn't have one.

They are treated differently because Warscrolls printed exactly like Warscrolls in different Battletomes arn't all used for Tournaments either.
Nothing in any way is incompetible with Tournament Play, as long as the rules are clear about what can be incorporated. In quite some cases we see additional cost alterations added to Tournament Rules aswell as the very commonly seen rule to meassure from base to base and apply a more restrictive form of line of sight. 

From the current products Games Workshop provides these are very rarely if ever seen on a Tournament, these all contain Warscrolls, Warscroll Battalions and additional rules that can easily be played with Matched point Pitched Battle Point costs (and at certain times where available there too):
- Battletome: Dominion of Chaos
- Battletome: Chaos Dreadhold
- The Realmgate Wars: All-Gates
- The Realmgate Wars: Godbeasts
- The Realmgate Wars: Balance of Power
- The Realmgate Wars: Quest for Ghal Maraz
In addition, factor in all scenery, some of which had GH2016 matched play pitched battle point costs:
- Baleful Realmgates
- Ophidian Archway
- Dreadhold Crucible
- Warscryer Citadel
- etc.
All can have a great excuse to be used for a particular event.

The only common thing we see in Tournament events not using it is make the distinction that it's part of a campaign or wants to amulate a partiular set story. This is also the case for Seasons of War Firestorm. It is not any different as the other products Games Workshop has provided in the past to emulate a particular story with an additional ammount of rules. Rules that are either a core system change, allegiance change, warscroll change etc.

The preforance of Battletome + Generals Handbook + Errata and FAQ + Tournament Rules can simply be there because that in itself is allready enough of ammounts of rules to onsider before all the additional core rules changes, allegiance changes and warscroll changes Age of Sigmar has to offer.

I had a lot of fun when the Firestorm Campaign was played locally and actually accept that the Battletome distinction is made the way it is because else I feel all other campaign related content should also be included. So that list of 4 'books' to go through goes to 10+ if you wanted to. Most TO's don't seem to want that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

I have explained to you multiple times now why campaign content doesn't always translate well to matched play events. The reason in this case being that it's added content on top of a Grand Allegiance meaning that if players want to have acces to the full actual rules for the Season of War Firestorm rulesset they need to A. Have the product, B. Be aware of all future campaign content releases that might be included and C. Have to be capable to obtain this product in non-digital form because GW's app for ease of use doesn't have it.
Likewise Battletome Chaos Dreadholds isn't used. Scenery does not have to have point costs to be legally used in Age of Sigmar Tournaments either, the Ferulent Gnarlmaw is currently used in several competitive veents allready and doesn't have one.

They are treated differently because Warscrolls printed exactly like Warscrolls in different Battletomes arn't all used for Tournaments either.
Nothing in any way is incompetible with Tournament Play, as long as the rules are clear about what can be incorporated. In quite some cases we see additional cost alterations added to Tournament Rules aswell as the very commonly seen rule to meassure from base to base and apply a more restrictive form of line of sight. 

From the current products Games Workshop provides these are very rarely if ever seen on a Tournament, these all contain Warscrolls, Warscroll Battalions and additional rules that can easily be played with Matched point Pitched Battle Point costs (and at certain times where available there too):
- Battletome: Dominion of Chaos
- Battletome: Chaos Dreadhold
- The Realmgate Wars: All-Gates
- The Realmgate Wars: Godbeasts
- The Realmgate Wars: Balance of Power
- The Realmgate Wars: Quest for Ghal Maraz
In addition, factor in all scenery, some of which had GH2016 matched play pitched battle point costs:
- Baleful Realmgates
- Ophidian Archway
- Dreadhold Crucible
- Warscryer Citadel
- etc.
All can have a great excuse to be used for a particular event.

The only common thing we see in Tournament events not using it is make the distinction that it's part of a campaign or wants to amulate a partiular set story. This is also the case for Seasons of War Firestorm. It is not any different as the other products Games Workshop has provided in the past to emulate a particular story with an additional ammount of rules. Rules that are either a core system change, allegiance change, warscroll change etc.

The preforance of Battletome + Generals Handbook + Errata and FAQ + Tournament Rules can simply be there because that in itself is allready enough of ammounts of rules to onsider before all the additional core rules changes, allegiance changes and warscroll changes Age of Sigmar has to offer.

I had a lot of fun when the Firestorm Campaign was played locally and actually accept that the Battletome distinction is made the way it is because else I feel all other campaign related content should also be included. So that list of 4 'books' to go through goes to 10+ if you wanted to. Most TO's don't seem to want that.

I still don't find this explanation very compelling or satisfying. This is mostly just a list of things that either aren't allowed at tournaments or aren't suitable for tournaments. Pointing to other things that tournaments don't like doesn't directly address any of the questions I put to you in my previous post. I say that Free Cities abilities have far more in common with other allegiance abilities than they have in common with these other things you've listed. You've yet to discredit that.

 

I have explained to you multiple times now why campaign content doesn't always translate well to matched play events. The reason in this case being that it's added content on top of a Grand Allegiance meaning that if players want to have acces to the full actual rules for the Season of War Firestorm rulesset they need to A. Have the product, B. Be aware of all future campaign content releases that might be included and C. Have to be capable to obtain this product in non-digital form because GW's app for ease of use doesn't have it.

Rubbish. For a Free Cities player, the Firestorm book is their equivalent of a battletome. It's used in place of the battletome that other factions would use - there are no 'extra books' required. And as for the idea that it's 'not accessible to everyone' it's no more or less accessible than any other battletome. I don't refuse to play Nurgle players because I personally don't own the Nurgle battletome. Nobody does that. It's like you want to judge Free Cities players by one set of criteria and everybody else by a different set.

 

The preforance of Battletome + Generals Handbook + Errata and FAQ + Tournament Rules can simply be there because that in itself is allready enough of ammounts of rules to onsider before all the additional core rules changes, allegiance changes and warscroll changes Age of Sigmar has to offer.

Firestorm Book + Generals Handbook + Errata and FAQ + Tournament Rules. It's the exact same number of books.

[Killax]

16 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I still don't find this explanation very compelling or satisfying. This is mostly just a list of things that either aren't allowed at tournaments or aren't suitable for tournaments. Pointing to other things that tournaments don't like doesn't directly address any of the questions I put to you in my previous post. I say that Free Cities abilities have far more in common with other allegiance abilities than they have in common with these other things you've listed. You've yet to discredit that.

 

Rubbish. For a Free Cities player, the Firestorm book is their equivalent of a battletome. It's used in place of the battletome that other factions would use - there are no 'extra books' required. And as for the idea that it's 'not accessible to everyone' it's no more or less accessible than any other battletome. I don't refuse to play Nurgle players because I personally don't own the Nurgle battletome. Nobody does that. It's like you want to judge Free Cities players by one set of criteria and everybody else by a different set.

 

Firestorm Book + Generals Handbook + Errata and FAQ + Tournament Rules. It's the exact same number of books.

Do you understand how many pieces of content there are that are from campaigns and easily used in Matched play? Again there is nothing stopping you from using Free Cities except some Tournament events. I am also completely certain that you can use Firestorm or Malign Portents in any Games Workshop now and in a year orso. 

There is nothing to discredit here, you searched for an awnser and this is the one. There is nothing scenery Warscrolls without costs don't have in common, they can be used for everybody. You should try out a game where both players have a Warscryer Citadel, pair of Realm Gates and more terrain pieces with Matched play, it's a lot of fun.
In addition Maggotkin of Nurgle allready uses Scenery Warscrolls without any cost and can even replicate the pieces. If a Tournament Organizer felt including all these premade Warscrolls that have everything in common with other Warscrolls they can choose to do so.

The Firestorm book is absolutely not the equivalent of a Battletome. This is the second time you state it and again it's much more than that. It's, much like the Realmgate Wars, a product that allows you to play a campaign with designs that match that campaign. It even explicitly states so on the product description:
 

Quote

Description Seasons of War Firestorm

In The Box

This box contains everything you need to run a multiplayer campaign of Warhammer Age of Sigmar in the war-torn lands of the Flamescar Plateau.  

There are also 9 sets of Allegiance Abilities for use in the campaign – 6 of these represent the major Sigmarite cities found on the map, with one each for the forces of Death, Destruction and Chaos. These include battle traits, command traits and artefacts of power for your armies to use.

Source: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/Season-Of-War-Firestorm-2017-eng

Again, it is a campaign based product. What is strange is acting as if it isn't and was sold in any different way by Games Workshop.
They even had a Campaign Store Locator link that is down now because it isn't Games Workshop's current campaign. Currently GW is setting up Malign Portents. They even have a current website where all the narrative is getting more and more explored and there is much more to come for this campaign.

As before, the policy TO's have is simple and very efficient. You either include all campaign content or not at all. It has nothing to do with balance from the getgo. Dreadholds didn't win tournaments either, nor did the Grand Allegiances changed from GH2016 in GH2017 because the previous ones where so terribly unbalanced.

[rokapoke]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

The Firestorm book is absolutely not the equivalent of a Battletome.

The General's Handbook is similarly not the equivalent of a Battletome either, yet that is permitted and encouraged (dare I say required) for tournament play... and it contains the Allegiance Abilities for many armies. So the Battletome distinction isn't magical here.

[Killax]

1 minute ago, rokapoke said:

The General's Handbook is similarly not the equivalent of a Battletome either, yet that is permitted and encouraged (dare I say required) for tournament play... and it contains the Allegiance Abilities for many armies. So the Battletome distinction isn't magical here.

That's completely correct, has little to do with the topic at hand here but as above, yes most Tournament Organizers use Generals Handbook and Battletomes as their template combined with FAQ and Errata and their own Tournament Rules because GH2017 still doesn't cover the base to base measurement rule for example. At the same time Battletome Chaos Dreadholds isn't used.

What most Tournament Organizers do not use is the campaign based content of past and future.

Back with the End Times we had some store Tournaments who didn't use the End Times books either. Meanwhile we also had a campaign who did use the End Times rules.

[Jamopower]

I guess the biggest thing in favour of the free city allegiances (and the malign portent heralds, or shadespire warbands, or warhammer quest heroes) is that you can run them in the GW GTs whereas the stuff listed above from the campaign books is not allowed. 

[Drofnum]

I find it rather silly that they arent allowed in places, there is no evidence whatsoever that indicates they would cause problems in matched play.  All of the arguments against them so far seem to be fairly silly as well.

How many people have even play tested them?

[darkspear]

I feel that the Free Cities have strong allegiance abilities when they first come out but it is no longer such a big issue with the Legions of Nagash.  I hope gw will reinstate Firestorm + Allegiance abilities. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

It’s all  bit dramatic though. One of the City abilities may have been unfun (though not anymore since the various FAQ) and not that anyone managed to use it to the predicted world shattering effect anyway.  It was clearly a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, especially in the case of the non Order abilities. 

On the subject of whether or not the abilities are meant for Matched Play, GW said they were. That’s pretty much all that counts. Attempting to dismiss them as, “eeww narrative” is not really cool. 

TOs should create the events they feel will work best, however community wide bans based on what seems to be hearsay is very strange and in my opinion not a road we should travel.  I remember the whole no Forge World rubbish and it made things worse not better

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

 I remember the whole no Forge World rubbish and it made things worse not better

Exactly, it was even by us here in Russia, Ukraine and CIS. FW did a lot of cool models for all, but TOs banned them all.

[Silchas_Ruin]

It seems the people who defend banning Free Cities mostly defend TO's right to do so. I totally support that that right. But this is not so much about that as why is banning Free Cities a thing that happens a lot in the first place. Not should they be allowed to ban them, but why do it?

What I don't get is why would you want to ban them in the first place. Sure, if you want to ban them you can make a argument for it. But why stop players from playing a army they like and is unlikely to end up on top tables.  

I don't like Firestorm so noone can play those armies? Does that really make sense?

[Gaz Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Silchas_Ruin said:

It seems the people who defend banning Free Cities mostly defend TO's right to do so. I totally support that that right. But this is not so much about that as why is banning Free Cities a thing that happens a lot. Not should they be allowed to ban them, its why do it?

I think it's all down to the organiser. To my knowledge, all UK events allow Firestorm Free Cities as per the FAQ from GW. But I think some event organisers have either heard bad things about the rules or just don't like them, thus don't allow them. Personally I don't have an issue with it but a lot of people seem to. No idea why as looking at what the other factions can do, the Free Cities rules aren't that bad.

[Silchas_Ruin]

4 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think it's all down to the organiser. To my knowledge, all UK events allow Firestorm Free Cities as per the FAQ from GW. But I think some event organisers have either heard bad things about the rules or just don't like them, thus don't allow them. Personally I don't have an issue with it but a lot of people seem to. No idea why as looking at what the other factions can do, the Free Cities rules aren't that bad.

Thats the thing. They don't seem bad, some people just don't like them. So I can kinda see where the first post here came from. Are people banning free Cities simply due to coming out in a campaign book and dismissing that as narrative play, without really looking if there is a reason to ban.

[Killax]

Again the word banned isn't even the right choice of words. In certain Tournament events no campaign based rules are used, that's really the simple end of it.
Seasons of War Firestorm was as much of campaign content as End Times was for WFB, Storm of Chaos was for WFB and Malign Portents is now for AoS. Not all created content is used for Tournament events and that's the simple end of that.

The assumption that there is disgust for it, balance issues are involved or anything else involved is just all that, one giant assumption. Several Tournament Organizers use additional Tournament Rules that arn't covered in Generals Handbook either. In fact a whole lot of them do to make sure the event is ran as they know how to. Same with square bases discussions, involving more scenery into Matched play etc. Just because it isn't done doesn't mean there is a hate for it or it's banned. It's just not used in this case because it's campaign content.

[stato]

What about the Skybourne Slayers stormcast formation? where does that come from, its not in a battletome?  That seems generally accepted now its been pointed in the GHB2017.