Free Cities Abilities - What's the beef?

[Silchas_Ruin]

45 minutes ago, Killax said:

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.

Again, yes TO's can choose what they use and they are allowed to drop Free Cities. All your arguments are about why TO's can do that. I have yet to see anyone argue that they should not be allowed to. 

The question for everyone other than you, is if leaving out Free Cities is a good idea. Thats what everyone else wants to bring up, does it make sense to not allow Free Cities. But all you want to do is make the same argument over and over about why TO's are allowed to leave Free Cities out.. So it feels like you keep arguing something different than the rest of us. 

Can you choose to say no campaign content. YES.

But why not allow a few extra allegiance abilities, really?

[Killax]

10 minutes ago, Silchas_Ruin said:

The question for everyone other than you, is if leaving out Free Cities is a good idea.

Your implying that I ever said it was a good idea to do so. What I am doing is awnsering a question.

Would I love it if every event included all the content from Domion of Chaos, Chaos Dreadhold, all the Warscroll Battalions available in The Realmgate Wars and see every table with the Realmgates, Archways and other complete buildings? For sure, I would love that.

At the same time, knowing that events are always bound on time, avenue, require a very specific clear set of ruling on top of the additional Tournament rules and staff involved I also completely understand why not to complicate things further down the road. Using GH2017 + Battletomes + FAQ/Errata + Tournament Rules is often complicated enough as is. 

Malign Portents Heralds and Malign Portents' Deck could be incorporated in tournaments to come but likely will not do so because it's set for a particular narrative, adds additional rules with a campaign setting in mind and because of that has a lot of potential to complicate things more than needed. Likewise we see that Games Workshop has designed over 36 scenario's now. It could also be a really fun idea to have an Event where this is incorporated into a D66 system that allows you to randomly generate a scenario. Most again don't do that because it complicates a timed event where ease of rules and rules clearity is essential.

[Silchas_Ruin]

23 minutes ago, Killax said:

Your implying that I ever said it was a good idea to do so. What I am doing is awnsering a question.

Would I love it if every event included all the content from Domion of Chaos, Chaos Dreadhold, all the Warscroll Battalions available in The Realmgate Wars and see every table with the Realmgates, Archways and other complete buildings? For sure, I would love that.

At the same time, knowing that events are always bound on time, avenue, require a very specific clear set of ruling on top of the additional Tournament rules and staff involved I also completely understand why not to complicate things further down the road. Using GH2017 + Battletomes + FAQ/Errata + Tournament Rules is often complicated enough as is. 

Malign Portents Heralds and Malign Portents' Deck could be incorporated in tournaments to come but likely will not do so because it's set for a particular narrative, adds additional rules with a campaign setting in mind and because of that has a lot of potential to complicate things more than needed. Likewise we see that Games Workshop has designed over 36 scenario's now. It could also be a really fun idea to have an Event where this is incorporated into a D66 system that allows you to randomly generate a scenario. Most again don't do that because it complicates a timed event where ease of rules and rules clearity is essential.

You are making this all or nothing. Should we allow everything GW ever realeased for AoS in turnaments. Noone is saying we should.

But many of us think allowing a few extra allegiance abilities would be easy. Its no extra work for a TO, you just don't ban Free Cities. No matter how much I try I can't see how this has anything to do with "Domion of Chaos, Chaos Dreadhold, all the Warscroll Battalions available in The Realmgate Wars". Pretty much all of that would require extra rules to use, thats not the same as just leaving out a sentence saying you can't use Free Cities.

Edit:

I just looked over your post again. Thats some stupid ****** you are saying. We are talking about a couple of people in a turnament using a different allegiance ability and you bring up playing with the Malign Portents Deck. You are clearly just here to argue, so I will stop feeding the troll

 

[Double Misfire]

20 hours 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.

Fair point. That said, you could argue that all of the aforementioned (Dreadhold scenery warscrolls, time of war rules, battalions without matched play points) are "scenario bolt ons" that don't figure into people's lists construction or the time/effort they invest into modelling and collecting their actual armies. In the case of the Balewind Vortex cited by you earlier in your post, it would fall into the same army list construction category as allegiance abilities.

 

20 hours ago, Killax said:

Matched play is full of scenery, so there really is no reason to not use it for Matched play and Tournament games/events.

I don't follow. If you check my post you'll see that I said that I said scenery warscrolls weren't "typically used in matched play", and not that they were banned from events.

Quote

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.

So were the Harbinger warscrolls, that's what I was asking if they'd be disallowed from the same events too.

Quote

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.

Killax, I understand you don't speak English as a first language, but you're without a doubt the rudest poster on this forum and the lack of respect and willingness to bait and throw personal insults at other posters is shocking. You've just been told off by a moderator for being rude in this thread!

@Jamie the Jasper wasn't directly insulting or baiting anyone in the topic title or OP content. You do.

Re: scoring points: Again, possibly a language barrier thing, so apologies if it didn't make sense. "Scoring Points" is an English expression meaning to gain an advantage over someone in a debate or argument, often by dubious means; I wasn't talking about forum reputation, sorry for any misunderstanding!  

Quote

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.

If you'll read the matched play rules for the Harbingers, you'll see that they can only be the general of allied armies, or allied to armies in their grand alliance they couldn't normally ally to during games using the Malign Portents rules, as that's the only way they'll gain the Harbinger keyword. I was talking about the warscrolls themselves.

20 hours ago, Killax said:

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

It also doesn't factor into list design and would be left up to the TO whether to put Dreadhold pieces on the tables and whether to let the players use the relevant warscrolls for them... see my reply to @CyderPirate above.

19 hours 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 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.

It's added content on top of a set of vanilla allegiance abilities that you have to give up access to a large selection of the units you'd normally be able to field to have. It's not that different from the four new allegiances in Battletome: Legions of Nagash by that standard.

Firestorm's a current product sold on the GW website, nobody's any more or less likely to own it than any battletome for an army they don't play. Not everyone has the money/shelf space to buy every available army book, and there are so many warscrolls and factions in AoS that you're unlikely to ever have a full working knowledge of all of them, especially some of the more uncommon ones. If I went to an event and got drawn against say... a Pestilens army, I wouldn't have a clue how they played or what their battalions or allegiance did, and it would be up to my opponent to talk me through how they worked before the game and answer any rules queries I had while we played. I really don't see how showing your opponent the page with the extra special rule your army gets due to the units in it is any different to this? 

Quote

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.

None of the Realmagate Wars books had any content usuable in matched play. I really don't follow your argument.

 

8 hours ago, darkspear said:

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. 

GW never banned the Firestorm allegiances, this thread's about various indipenent tournaments not allowing them.  

 

39 minutes ago, stato said:

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.

First appeared on the GW website as part of a bundle back in the early days of AoS and then turned up again in Grand Alliance: Order  

[Double Misfire]

Urghmagahd, this thread has devolved into something egregious, and I'm sorry if I'm partially responsible. I just want to chat about how cool Free Cities are and will probably start Let's Chat thread for them in the Order forum when I've had time to come up for air. 

[Morglum StormBasha]

I think free cities abilities post faq are fine and should be allowed in tournmanet play. 

I’d also like to see a battletome free cities come out like legions of Nagash. No ne models - just codify the rules and collate all the free guild old aelf and duardin warscrolls in one place now that grand alliance order book is mostly defunct 

[Killax]

13 minutes ago, Double Misfire said:

I don't follow. If you check my post you'll see that I said that I said scenery warscrolls weren't "typically used in matched play", and not that they were banned from events.

They arn't used, not banned. As you are a native English speaker you do understand the word 'banned' well better as I do. Being banned implies it had acces to events before and doesn't now. Like the Chaos Dreadholds the Dreadholds arn't banned, they are just not available/used.

13 minutes ago, Double Misfire said:

So were the Harbinger warscrolls, that's what I was asking if they'd be disallowed from the same events too.

As before, it's up to the TO to decide if he wants to used them and implement Malign Portents. The Harbingers can be added, the MP deck can be added, the scenario's can be added. The whole narrative of the event can sygn up with Malign Portents, Firestorm or Realmgate Wars. It isn't a disallowance, it's using these aspects or not.

13 minutes ago, Double Misfire said:

If you'll read the matched play rules for the Harbingers, you'll see that they can only be the general of allied armies, or allied to armies in their grand alliance they couldn't normally ally to during games using the Malign Portents rules, as that's the only way they'll gain the Harbinger keyword. I was talking about the warscrolls themselves.

If you'll read other Battletome's you will see we have several characters that must be a general in particular armies. How does this MUST BE rule interact with the CAN BE rule?

E.g.

• In Grand Host of Nagash when Nagash is present, Nagash must be the general, however Herald rules state it can be the general in all cases also. This is a conflicting rule that Event Organizers look for to not have list building be an issue. This part is not covered by any of the GW FAQ/Errata.
• In Khorne when Khorgos Khul is present with the Goretide, Khorgos Khul must be the general, however Herald rules state it can be the general in all cases also. This is a conflicting rule that Event Organizers look for to not have list building be an issue. This part is not covered by any of GW FAQ/Errata.
• Almost every Allegiance has Warscrolls that interact in an unknown manner with Heralds.

When you are creating an Tournament Event you want to keep rules as clear as possible. The community currently is largely aware of what Battletomes, GH2017, FAQ and Errata do. This is the case because Games Workshop heavily promotes their content and impact for this.

What Games Workshop seldomly does is look into Campaign based content and FAQ/Errata these for the questions that are attached to them. They rarely go into this because campaign based products are used for narrative contexts and not created for competitive Tournament Event context.

So as before, not using X or Y in most cases is done to not complicate things more as they need to. Likewise we see several Tournament Events not using square bases because they can lead to issues of model placement. In that same vein they promote base to base measurements while other rules do not state this has to be done. In even other cases adaptations to Fate Dice and Shooting phases are allready made.

[Double Misfire]

5 minutes ago, Morglum StormBasha said:

I think free cities abilities post faq are fine and should be allowed in tournmanet play. 

I’d also like to see a battletome free cities come out like legions of Nagash. No ne models - just codify the rules and collate all the free guild old aelf and duardin warscrolls in one place now that grand alliance order book is mostly defunct 

I wouldn't be shocked it we didn't see the remaining softback Grand Alliance books replaced with Legions of Nagash style books for Free Cities, Slaves to Darkness + Beastmen, Skaven, and the remaining Gutbuster and Orc and Goblin stuff. Here's hoping anyway!  

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

As before, it's up to the TO to decide if he wants to used them and implement Malign Portents. The Harbingers can be added, the MP deck can be added, the scenario's can be added. The whole narrative of the event can sygn up with Malign Portents, Firestorm or Realmgate Wars. It isn't a disallowance, it's using these aspects or not.

If you'll read other Battletome's you will see we have several characters that must be a general in particular armies. How does this MUST BE rule interact with the CAN BE rule?

Reading comprehension! You'll see in my previous post that I said that the four harbringer models only gain the HARBINGER kewyword in games of AoS using the campaign content for Malign Portents themselves (Malign Portents p50).  On the page of Malign Portents with their pitched battle profiles on (p80), the text explains that a model with the HARBINGER keyword supersedes the usual ally and army general rules. As the four models in question don't have the HARBINGER kewyword outside of games using the rules for Malign Portents this isn't an issue for tournaments not using them.

I'm sure who can be the army general when Nagash or Khorgous Kul turns up in a game using the Malign Portents rules will be answered shortly in an faq.

[Jamopower]

One thing I would add, is that while the decision to allow or not allow something is in TO's hands, it might have further effects as the bigger tournaments (or bigger local tournaments) can impact many other players besides the people going to tournaments. For example here in Finland, 8th edition fantasy battle was widely played according to ETC comps and rulings, and 40k and 9th age still do. Even when there are 8-10 players in the whole country per game who actually participate those tournaments. I could imagine something similar happening in AoS with SCGT  or LVO or similar big tournament (or with the ETC, which seems to have included AoS this year as well).

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

I think this thread has gone on for long enough now. The behavior of some of the people in this thread is not what TGA is about. Good discussion is welcomed but this has just gone too far into Nit Picking too much. I'm locking it now and I really don't want to see this sort of behavior again