Would you play Matched Play if it had no restrictions on battleline, behemoths, heros?

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Thats because matched play is supposed to be about balanced tournament style play.  A frustrating thing is how there are so many different ways to play, but no one wants to play those ways lol (where something like this would be fine).

Points are a way of enforcing balance yes, but the current point system still has a roughly 11% skew.  Battleline I think is more to make armies look like armies yes.  Just as few people wanted to buy books if they didn't have to (and no one near me bought a single book until Sylvaneth were released and special rules were put in the book that they couldn't get free), having to buy "normal scrubs" or weaker units that you need more than a handful of is something at least here a giant chunk of players would avoid if they were allowed. 

Of course... if they weren't beholden to matched play-only they c ould build those armies in another format.

Right.  GW seems to think that if you're only using matched play for tournaments, and if not you're not using it.  When that's not how it works.  But it's also that a lot of people are unwilling to budge from "pure" Matched Play even if they aren't doing a tournament.  People should, for example, allow you to field a bunch of heroes, Hero restrictions be damned, in a casual game even if it's using Matched Play guidelines, but people are too often just "nope, not legal army" and treat everything like a tournament environment where you want to be heavily restricted.  The onus in this case is on players who still want to TREAT everything as though it's a strict tournament, when it's a fun game.  Loosen up restrictions for regular play, you can still use points.  The issue is there's no really accepted middle ground between "play whatever you want" and "arbitrary restrictions suitable for tournaments"..  That, arguably, is why I am in favor of Matched Play w/out restrictions, because that IS the middle ground.

Basically I see way too many people who use Matched Play as written-in-stone rules rather than guidelines for some balance.  In a tournament sure, go stricter.  In a friendly game where you want something resembling balance, use them as a guide and loosen up restrictions if someone has a cool idea they want to try instead of telling them "No that's not legal" and force them to change..  But that's "house rules" and house rules seems to be evil and reviled.  In a friendly game what the hell does it matter if someone has 2 Battleline instead of 3, or 8 heroes instead of 6, or is 20 points over because they can't drop something (just roll with it and take a Triumph or something).

[wayniac]

It doesn't even have to be either or (i.e. Matched Play w/Restrictions or Matched Play w/No Restrictions), people just need to not strictly adhere to the matched play stuff for casual games.  Like I said above, what does it really matter in a friendly game if someone only has 2 battleline or 8 heroes or is 20 points over the limit which is abstract anyways?  Why nitpick if it's a friendly game?  Just let them do it, you're still getting "mostly" balanced play with points; a far cry from the alternatives.  Yet people refuse to budge on these things for regular games. 

[Charles]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Thats because matched play is supposed to be about balanced tournament style play.  

It's not just that though. Why would you create a warscroll battalion called Gorechosen and give it a points value when it is always illegal in Matched Play?

If it is only for Narative/Open play why does it have a value attached. 

Like I said very odd.

[Shea]

I like open play, using old warscroll battalions not upgraded for matched play. I think this way  is more balanced than matched 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Auticus said:

What makes the Gorechosen battalion illegal?  

It has more heroes in it than you can legally field in a matched play army at any size.

[Killax]

13 minutes ago, Charles said:

It's not just that though. Why would you create a warscroll battalion called Gorechosen and give it a points value when it is always illegal in Matched Play?

If it is only for Narative/Open play why does it have a value attached. 

Like I said very odd.

Yeah the issue is that a lot of narrative design (Battalions included) doesn't match with the matched play design because it seems that it wasn't initially intended for that. What I think makes AoS very difficult in terms of design is that the same designers working on GH2017 are not the same as those who create new content for the game itself.

It's because of this that I think the unit Warscrolls in a lot of things work out well but the additional rules around that don't. Same with the new Faction and Allies rule. Initially the Warscrolls where not designed with that in mind and because of that GH2017 can't really give a clear stance on it RAW. If you add rules it's very important to update all rules attached to that. I feel that the notion of Factions in GH2017 didn't add much, likewise the notion of Grand Allegiances didn't add much in GH2016.

What I hope to see is that AoS at some point can only refer to Allegiances. Allies could have been an additional rule tied to Allegiances but somehow this wasn't worked out that way. Likewise Battleline, Leader and Artillery arn't really tied to specific Keywords. Which is also why I don't see the added value in Battleline, don't see how Hero as a Keyword isn't a clear enough indication for Leader and what consitutes as Artillery or Mount should really simply be printed on a Warscroll to ensure full clearity.

[Trout]

9 minutes ago, Charles said:

It's not just that though. Why would you create a warscroll battalion called Gorechosen and give it a points value when it is always illegal in Matched Play?

If it is only for Narative/Open play why does it have a value attached. 

Like I said very odd.

They also provide points for massive battalions like the Alfrostun which you would need far more than the 2500 point maximum to field. I think the idea is that you could play these really huge games if you wanted to. In addition to this, they specifically mention that some people prefer to play without those restrictions, it's mentioned right below the table that lists these maximums; so it's good for them to provide points for those of us who decide to play without those restrictions.

[wayniac]

Just now, Auticus said:

Didn't the rules for formations trump core restrictions?  I would insinuate that the developers giving it matched play points means that is definitely their intent.

If so, it's something nobody ever has used because "muh balance"

[Killax]

As a bit of a sidenote, was it ever explained how we ended up with:
- Leaders
- Battleline
- Artillery
- Behemoths
- Other units

As opposed to directly making use of Keywords printed like:
- Hero
- Monster
And attach restrictions to the number of those Keywords appearing in armies?
Likewise if people felt Artillery was still and issue couldn't they just include this as a Keyword update to Warscrolls? 

For me, as per the other topic, I think it would in general be benificial for the game and the compagny to have one free Battalion per X points of army. Competitive players will figure out what they deem is the "best", Narrative players will figure out which story they like the most and follow with their army. To me the costs there arn't really adding anything for anyone.

[rokapoke]

57 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Right.  GW seems to think that if you're only using matched play for tournaments, and if not you're not using it.  When that's not how it works.  But it's also that a lot of people are unwilling to budge from "pure" Matched Play even if they aren't doing a tournament.  People should, for example, allow you to field a bunch of heroes, Hero restrictions be damned, in a casual game even if it's using Matched Play guidelines, but people are too often just "nope, not legal army" and treat everything like a tournament environment where you want to be heavily restricted.  The onus in this case is on players who still want to TREAT everything as though it's a strict tournament, when it's a fun game.  Loosen up restrictions for regular play, you can still use points.  The issue is there's no really accepted middle ground between "play whatever you want" and "arbitrary restrictions suitable for tournaments"..  That, arguably, is why I am in favor of Matched Play w/out restrictions, because that IS the middle ground.

 

51 minutes ago, Auticus said:

It may be worthwhile for GW to "officially define" that then.  As I've posted before ... in Azyr we called that the Heroic format.  It was the most popular format as well.

@Auticus, I'm not sure but I think your comment was in reference to @wayniac's comment here. GW actually has made unrestricted matched play "semi-official". The General's Handbook (GHB) section on Matched Play very clearly indicates that you are encouraged to mix and match things from within the book sections (like Narrative Play with points to settle on army sizes, for instance). Additionally, I clearly recall reading, just last night, a statement in GHB2017 that recommends playing "points only" with no other restrictions. It's "semi-official" if players look past the tables and into the surrounding text.

What happens all too often is that we as players get tracked into looking at the force composition tables (okay, for X points I need Y batteline units, and this unit costs me Z points...) rather than thinking first about what kind of game we're looking for. For a lot of people, they want that tournament-style game every time, and the tables are effectively gospel. For others, the tables could be considered guidelines or potentially outright ignored.

GW wants all of their customers to have a gaming option, and so have gone absolutely out of their way to carve multiple niches within the GHB. It's up to the players to find what works for them, but there are so many variants that have official backing in the GHB.

[Trout]

9 minutes ago, Auticus said:

 

 

They do yes, but people ignore anything that says "you can feel free to ignore this".  Semi-official holds as much weight as fan-made homebrew.  There needs to be an actual "this is heroic play" method defined officially.  People will then pay attention to that.  The deviations and hints that the devs give are technically the same thing but people tend to ignore those suggestions unless they have an official title and format.  Bonus points if a big tournament picks up on it and uses it in their format.

Speak for yourself and your own community.

[Ollie Grimwood]

7 minutes ago, Auticus said:

 

 

They do yes, but people ignore anything that says "you can feel free to ignore this".  Semi-official holds as much weight as fan-made homebrew.  There needs to be an actual "this is heroic play" method defined officially.  People will then pay attention to that.  The deviations and hints that the devs give are technically the same thing but people tend to ignore those suggestions unless they have an official title and format.  Bonus points if a big tournament picks up on it and uses it in their format.

People don't seem to have a problem with measuring base to base which is very much a house rule.  I suspect it's kept like that to encourage the use of house rules generally.  It's a crying shame some won't as its a great way to enhance ones enjoyment.   I guess you can only lead a horse to water you can't make it drink  

 

[Trout]

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Ask around in a typical forum or group of players if they are ok with deviation from official rules.  You'll get a few that will.  You'll also get a wall of resistance from a good chunk of people as well.

That's exactly what this thread did. As of right now, 60% like the idea of deviating from these restrictions.

[Trout]

Just now, Auticus said:

A global poll involving multiple sources would be very revealing.

Alternatively, you could just speak for yourself and not pretend you've actually done this poll and have the data.

[Ollie Grimwood]

27 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The base-to-base houserule is a great example of a non official rule treated officially.  And I think there's one reason for that which ties into one of my above posts:  it is tournament standard.  Anything tournament standard will always be deemed official as well.  If tournament-standard was measuring from model like official rules, I would guarantee that base to baes measurement would rarely be seen.

Interestingly the SCGT employs quite a few house rules in their pack and custom Battleplans.  Of a course some of them were precursors to the GHB but generally they mostly remained unique to them (especially the Battleplans)

I think base to base is more of a case of wargamers being institutionalised to it but I take your point. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I bet some of them do, there are certainly build up events in the months leading up so people can practise and they are marketed as such, they advertise they will be using the current SCGT pack.  It's not universal by any stretch but it does happen and seems to stop after the event. 

[Siegfried VII]

To answer the initial question, no I would not like to play without these restrictions.

I believe they are not harsh and even balance issues aside it makes up for armies that have a visual effect of an actual army.

I mean look at some 40k lists and you'll see things like lists with 10+ assasins etc... I just don't want to see such list on the table...