Realm of Battle rules have been officially suggested to be used in tournament matched play

[BaldoBeardo]

"Napoleon would definitely have won the Russian Campaign of 1812 if Alexander I hadn't rolled a 1 on the weather table. It wasn't fair. He had a really tight French list with a well-picked allied contingent and his Attack Column alpha was normally unbeatable. Alexander I didn't even have the good grace to say he didn't deserve the win. Napoleon shouldn't have had to take more logistic units just to win."

- Simeon Ouef-de-Dejeuner, Historian, probably.

 

[Skabnoze]

5 minutes ago, Undeadly said:

I think the idea of randomly picked features per battle COULD work. I think there's some neat ideas  you can do. But in its current state, the Realm of Battle rules are not effective at what they are meant to do. 

I feel like half of the people in this thread are discussing/arguing completely different things.

I never once advocated randomly generating realms or realm effects in a tournament.  I said that I approve of trying out Realm Rules in tournaments as per GW suggestion, but I also stated that they should not be randomly selected or generated.  I think all of the realm scape features are interesting and could potentially be fun, but I don't think they all are fit for a competitive event.  The immediate example are the no-rend at all or the 6" max attack range results.  Both of those simply impact certain armies way too much.  But the 18" max attack range is not nearly as negative and is much more tactically interesting. 

Every single one of the realm scape tables has results that are less pronounced but still impactful.  I would expect that TOs would sift out these ones and apply them to games rather than just having attendees randomly generate stuff each game.  The TO's job is to organize and the Realm Rules are built in a way that should allow them to fit them into organization if they so chose.  They can also be added in such a way that players are not wholly blind-sided when they attend events.

A lot of these arguments are missing the discussion about how these rules can be organized well into a tournament.  I take the position that they can be and so far I have not seen a compelling argument that says that these rules cannot be adapted to fit into an organized event.

[Ravinsild]

32 minutes ago, Undeadly said:

Tell me, what do you do when half your  army simply cannot run? I typically don't run anyway, because my playstyle but...I would just walk.

Or can't shoot more than 6" inches? I mean what shooting? I play Khorne. Besides my Khorgorath is the only shooting unit and it's 6" anyway so...nothing changes?

Or takes d3 MW when they run more than 6"? I don't run, I walk.

or when you roll a dice for each model in the unit, and if its under their armor save, they get that many MW if they get lucky and roll a 6+? Then I lose some of my models. Oh no. It's not like there's a billion on spells and abilities that do this. What do you do when you get charged by a Thundertusk or Stonehorn (whichever one) from BCR and they roll a 6 and you take 6 mortal wounds? I mean...

Or if all of a sudden, none of you or your opponents have ANY rend? You mean like when I fight Nighthaunt? I just try to flood them with dice.

Or if every single terrain piece is Sinister?  Bloodsecrator - immune to battleshock. Exalted Deathbringer as a backup incase my Bloodsecrator dies and/or Inspiring Presence.

 

 

Actually, I just give up and cry and complain about how this game is ******.

[VBS]

 It's interesting because list-building  becomes prominent, focusing on being capable of working (at least decently) in every situation. If shooting is going to be crippled, you will have melee to counter. Or the other way around. Magic gets a boost? Good thing you have a wizard or two. Or the other way around. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Jack of all trades type. One-tick-wonders will continue to be so, only working on specific situations (more so based on luck now). If you build a list capable a facing any situation, your full army might not be totally effective/optimised for that specific encounter but at least has the tools to react, because it is adaptable/diverse. On the long run (such as a 5-6 round tournament), this should yield positive results.  A good thing to promote.

This is probably an advantage for a tactical genious (CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED) but for someone who relies one-dimensional netlisting and zero intentions of improving, it's understandably bad. Overall, a step forward for AoS.

[Ravinsild]

5 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

 so far I have not seen a compelling argument that says that these rules cannot be adapted to fit into an organized event.

The argument thus far has been, "But what if I lose?" in more or less words. It isn't very compelling, but that's the one people keep bringing up.

[svnvaldez]

These guidelines are suggestions on GWs intent with their design process. It is up to local communities to decide what to do with any of the rules GW publishes if your not playing at a GW store or Heat.

At least where I live (West Coast USA) this gives players an official document to point to when we disagree with the direction the game is going in our area (houserules that modify the game away from playing what is in the book). 

I'd recommend everyone spend half the time they are using on the TGA form and email there local stores and TOs. I have already emailed the LVO TOs and EOs and stated what I would  like to see in the players pack for this year.

It is the players that fill the attendance numbers. If you disagree with the players pack and how they are handling realm rules your options are to either not go to that event or to actively lobby to get the players pack you feel is fair. 

[amysrevenge]

1 minute ago, svnvaldez said:

 email there local stores and TOs. I have already emailed the LVO TOs and EOs and stated what I would  like to see in the players pack for this year.

That's actually a pretty good idea.  Even if you disagree with me, I'd recommend if you have a strong opinion on the matter, reaching out to the TOs of events you plan to attend and let them know what you'd prefer to see.

[ianob]

It is highly insulting to players that regularly place well or win events to claim that they win because of listbuilding alone.

This is a game with a lot of player skill and knowledge involved. Lists are important, but copying a net list won’t win you an event against good players. Have a little bit of respect for peoples’ achievements.

[tokek]

3 hours ago, Undeadly said:

Well than we'll have to agree to disagree. Because Generalship in a game like of AoS should be based around how well they put the army together, how well they play that army, and how well they can counter their opponent. Even the best player, when given a rule that ACTIVELY hinders and hurts their army, will be at a disadvantage. These rules based entirely on luck; how in the world argue that this is good for a healthy competitive community, when some of these realm rules can just do so much damage against certain armies, but are based entirely on things as simple as single roll of a dice? You might as well be gambling at that point, since no amount of tactics or strategy can save you from some of these effects.

As I said further up the thread I hit a worst-case scenario version of that in a 40K tournament game at the weekend because that is what Open War cards do sometimes. I do not mind that I lost because I know that making my opponent have to make a save with the last dice roll of the game to avoid me winning was the result of me having diluted the "power" of my list to put more options in there and then using those to the full limit of my tactical ability. Trying to overcome a disadvantage that crippling was a huge test of my ability and nearly pulling through that was and is a high point of my competitive play - frankly much more than the 3 tablings I handed out.

I accept that some players do not care for that, they only enjoy the win regardless of how they get it. Fine, we can be a diverse community of players but GW had to make a recommendation and the one they gave was intended to appeal to as wide a spectrum of players as possible and is in line with the way they have designed the game.

As for the dice rolling - I really doubt that tournaments will be rolling dice for that any more than they currently roll for scenario which is what the game has been saying to do all along. TO's have not been rolling for scenario so why would they suddenly forget what they are there for with realm rules?

[amysrevenge]

7 minutes ago, ianob said:

It is highly insulting to players that regularly place well or win events to claim that they win because of listbuilding alone.

This is a game with a lot of player skill and knowledge involved. Lists are important, but copying a net list won’t win you an event against good players. Have a little bit of respect for peoples’ achievements.

 It is necessary but not sufficient to either come up with or use a net list.

Play poorly, net list: mid tables

Play well, poor list: mid tables

Play poorly, poor list: bottom tables

Play well, net list:  top tables

[ianob]

14 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

 It is necessary but not sufficient to either come up with or use a net list.

Play poorly, net list: mid tables

Play well, poor list: mid tables

Play poorly, poor list: bottom tables

Play well, net list:  top tables

Sorry, but no. That’s a huge oversimplification. There are plenty of “mid tier” lists, tier 2 lists, call them what you like, that are capable of winning a tournament given a good player and a decent run of matchups/dice.

Playing a net list or any list poorly can and will put you on the bottom tables.

[lolwut]

"Here, let me lay my ego down as table stakes. Now, let's have fun!"

The prevailing need to win is why realm rules create problems. If participation was its own reward, they would be viewed in an entirely different light. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Writing a legal matched play list is easy.

Writing a legal matched play list that makes the most of your strengths is doable for most.

Writing a legal matched play list that makes the most of your strengths while covering or compensating for your weaknesses takes practice.

Writing a legal matched play list that makes the most of your strengths while covering or compensating for your weaknesses and has something to counter any opponent is amazing.

Writing a legal matched play list that makes the most of your strengths while covering or compensating for your weaknesses and has something to counter any opponent AND gives no bothers about where you fight or what the scenario is... my child, that is the very face of God...

 

[froo]

6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Right.  These rules may be fun in non tournament / competitive environments, but in a competitive environment its really winning in some cases simply because you got lucky on the realm. 

In a game where 99% of the decisions are the outcome of dice rolls, I don't know how anyone can make this argument with a straight face.

I've won games because my opponent just rolled poorly. I've won games where the dice was AMAZING for me (I'm looking at you specifically Foot of Gork). I've lost games because I did bonehead moves early on. I've won games because my opponent has underestimated some aspect of what I was playing.

It's just another layer of randomisation. Sure, some of that randomisation can be unfavourable, but it is statistically less likely to completely ruin someone's day than pretty much any other roll in the game.

[Hvy]

I'd guess that quite a few TO's will use the Realms rules in their matched-play tournaments and see how they play out. Some people will like them, some will hate them and come next General's Handbook changes will be made one way or the other. Some where in these 10 pages someone mentioned voting with your feet- if you don't want to play in tournaments with these rule, don't. If TO's see a dip in attendance at other tournaments that will be a data point they can use to determine whether they want to use them or not.

I'm fairly confident that both pro and against opinion will not be changed- this is the internet after all.

[svnvaldez]

9 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

It is necessary but not sufficient to either come up with or use a net list.

Play poorly, net list: mid tables

 Play well, poor list: mid tables

 Play poorly, poor list: bottom tables

 Play well, net list:  top tables

This is on the money for high level AOS events.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, lolwut said:

"Here, let me lay my ego down as table stakes. Now, let's have fun!"

The prevailing need to win is why realm rules create problems. If participation was its own reward, they would be viewed in an entirely different light. 

While I agree, it's tough to fight human nature. Not to get too far out there, but man's desire to compete had driven his evolution. Winning, in all its forms, pushes our race to grow, with the winners getting the food, getting the girl, getting the protection, getting the followers, etc.

 

Now, thank goodness we are able to use our thinkie brains to overcome many of our base urges, but genetically, to our benefit, "winners" have passed on the traits that move us ahead and allow us to survive.

 

That's hella tough to just put aside.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Hvy said:

Some where in these 10 pages someone mentioned voting with your feet- if you don't want to play in tournaments with these rule, don't. If TO's see a dip in attendance at other tournaments that will be a data point they can use to determine whether they want to use them or not.

As I illustrated earlier, while that seems sensible at first glance, that's really not a workable solution.

[Nin Win]

The major events will dictate the direction things go.  And if the organizers of the events are involved in the playtesting then they already know the implications of everything.  They'll set the tone and general expectation and smaller events will follow suit with the norm they set.

[tokek]

23 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

While I agree, it's tough to fight human nature. Not to get too far out there, but man's desire to compete had driven his evolution. Winning, in all its forms, pushes our race to grow, with the winners getting the food, getting the girl, getting the protection, getting the followers, etc.

 

Now, thank goodness we are able to use our thinkie brains to overcome many of our base urges, but genetically, to our benefit, "winners" have passed on the traits that move us ahead and allow us to survive.

 

That's hella tough to just put aside.

Let's approach this from the other side. Some people on this thread are viewing it as terrible that they might lose a game.

If you cannot take both victory and defeat in your stride then you should not be playing in tournaments. Everybody loses sometimes.

I can only explain the strength of opinions here as being driven by a fear of losing a game but if you really do have such a strong fear of losing then tournaments are either a miserable experience for you or you are making tournaments a miserable experience for others.

Oh and the evolutionary biology stuff is a bit over-simplified - we are also social animals endowed with empathy so there is a lot more to it than just wanting to win. We have many urges relevant to the social situation of playing games in a tournament, winning is just one of them.

 

[hughwyeth]

10 hours ago, ianob said:

Sorry, but no. That’s a huge oversimplification. There are plenty of “mid tier” lists, tier 2 lists, call them what you like, that are capable of winning a tournament given a good player and a decent run of matchups/dice.

Playing a net list or any list poorly can and will put you on the bottom tables.

I listen to your podcast every week and love listening to how you guys play your lists. From my point of view- I wasn't saying netlists win- I was saying the kind of player that only goes to a tournament to win with a netlist and has no care for the hobby or background story isn't getting the most out of the hobby, and for me the realm rules will enrich games, whilst making players like you have a more interesting challenge. I played Ritchie in LGT (he tabled me turn 2, he's a great player) and clearly you guys love the hobby and have painting skill. 

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

Locking this thread as it's gone majorly off-track and although overall polite, seems to contain quite a lot of non-constructive comments and discussion about what people should/shouldn't be doing when they play a tournament