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

[Dead Scribe]

I was just giving an example.  

Hobby and fluff don't mean anything to me you are correct.  I play what the people around me are playing so that I can get games in and the only thing that really attracts me to a game is its tournament scene.

[amysrevenge]

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

If I go to a major tournament wanting to compete at the highest level with the goal being to win, and I build a list that can't win depends on alpha striking and I roll a realm that prevents that from happening and I lose the game and have no shot at winning the event because of that random realm roll, I'd just as soon not spend the money on hotel, travel, and the time spent for nothing.

Hmm

[hughwyeth]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I was just giving an example.  

Hobby and fluff don't mean anything to me you are correct.  I play what the people around me are playing so that I can get games in and the only thing that really attracts me to a game is its tournament scene.

There's nothing wrong with that mate. You should play as you want, and competitive only players are great for us (I think) as they find some great and interesting combos. But I really think players are missing out if they just go for the most predictable game generation in a tournament. I've said it so many times here, but the best games I've played are open play with matched points. Totally unpredictable and always fun. I've never had a bad randomly generated open play game, but I've had boring straight matched play games, or at least games where from turn 1 I knew I had won/lost.

[Mr. White]

8 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I was just giving an example.  

Hobby and fluff don't mean anything to me you are correct.  I play what the people around me are playing so that I can get games in and the only thing that really attracts me to a game is its tournament scene.

Total curiosity, but if hobby and fluff don't mean anything, and a gamer is only in it for the competitiveness...why not stick with Chess? or Poker? real money can be made in poker.

Maybe Magic if you want a thin veneer of fantasy setting.

[Unit1126PLL]

The reason that "combined arms" or its era-specific equivalent has been true since literally ever (even the Greek phalanxes had supporting skirmishers and cavalry!) is because there is no "one right answer" for every situation.

Building a hammer, and then complaining that you got a scenario when you needed a saw, is really silly. IMO, a game that encourages you to have an army that does a bit of everything is a better game than one that says "Did you bring six units that perform X function? If y, win, if n, lose."
This doesn't mean you can't build an army that specializes. For example, my Slaanesh Daemons have no shooting. That means against characters like Nagash, where the shooting is immensely helpful, I have to play much more carefully and am much more likely to lose than I would be if I just brought Ironweld Arsenal with a ton of cannons or whatever. But it's still possible, and AOS has the tools to do that (just in this example, I can give my Exalted Keeper of Secrets the Devotee of Torment Command Trait, the Thermalrider Cloak artefact, and now I move 18+d6" and pile-in 6 to attack, all over units. Now? NAGASH has to play carefully, and make excellent use of screening units and whatnot.

Again, don't complain that you build a one-trick army in a rule-set that literally says "one-trick armies lose". Instead, try not to build a one-trick army.
 

[Dead Scribe]

9 minutes ago, Mr. White said:

Total curiosity, but if hobby and fluff don't mean anything, and a gamer is only in it for the competitiveness...why not stick with Chess? or Poker? real money can be made in poker.

Maybe Magic if you want a thin veneer of fantasy setting.

Because the players that I socialize with are currently tournament gaming in AOS.

[amysrevenge]

It's all about how reliable your gimmick can be. 

I'm not a great player - the main weakness I have is I always latch on to a dumb gimmick that only works a small fraction of the time (example:  the gimmick of buffing Ogors with Ironfists, last edition, to maximize the bounce-back of mortal wounds in combat - sure, it works when you can get it, but it's a STUPID thing to lean on as it is so minor, and yet it's something I somehow chose to build a list around and actually play for.........). 

The better the list builder, the more often their gimmick works - BUT all gimmicks have some limits, some circumstances where they don't work, even without any optional rules.  Realm of Battle rules will force gimmicks into more scenarios where they are unreliable.  You're not being reduced from something that works 100% of the time to something that works 50% of the time.  You're being reduced from something that works 90% of the time to something that works 80% of the time (exact numbers made up, but in general that's the idea).

[stato]

13 minutes ago, Unit1126PLL said:

The reason that "combined arms" or its era-specific equivalent has been true since literally ever (even the Greek phalanxes had supporting skirmishers and cavalry!) is because there is no "one right answer" for every situation.

Building a hammer, and then complaining that you got a scenario when you needed a saw, is really silly. IMO, a game that encourages you to have an army that does a bit of everything is a better game than one that says "Did you bring six units that perform X function? If y, win, if n, lose."
This doesn't mean you can't build an army that specializes. For example, my Slaanesh Daemons have no shooting. That means against characters like Nagash, where the shooting is immensely helpful, I have to play much more carefully and am much more likely to lose than I would be if I just brought Ironweld Arsenal with a ton of cannons or whatever. But it's still possible, and AOS has the tools to do that (just in this example, I can give my Exalted Keeper of Secrets the Devotee of Torment Command Trait, the Thermalrider Cloak artefact, and now I move 18+d6" and pile-in 6 to attack, all over units. Now? NAGASH has to play carefully, and make excellent use of screening units and whatnot.

Again, don't complain that you build a one-trick army in a rule-set that literally says "one-trick armies lose". Instead, try not to build a one-trick army.
 

How does my Kharadron faction work to win scenarios where i need wizards and my only strength (shooting) is now limited potentially by realm, but also by spells i cant hope to deny, cast by wizards stood in woods i cant shoot into. Variety?  That looks to me like KO now only hope to place high in tournaments is the Alpha strike clown car and hope they dont get a bad roll on scenario and realm. Or just take another faction, one that can deal with what might occur, which i guess is probably only a few. [edit: Ive never ran clown car as i just played 'fun' lists, but now my army seems neutered for competitive play, i allied some normal dwarfs in last tournament for laughs as i had just painted them]

One trick armies were a part of the game, they have now introduced a system where a random dice roll might stop it.  Those armies are still as good, if not better because they will now be facing more 'rounded' armies which wont be built to counter.  Chances are they will still win tournaments because people will play them, and it will only be by chance that they get stopped in their tracks. Chance cant stop everyone.

[Unit1126PLL]

3 minutes ago, stato said:

How does my Kharadron faction work to win scenarios where i need wizards and my only strength (shooting) is now limited potentially by realm, but also by spells i cant hope to deny, cast by wizards stood in woods i cant shoot into. Variety?  That looks to me like KO now only hope to place high in tournaments is the Alpha strike clown car and hope they dont get a bad roll on scenario and realm. Or just take another faction, one that can deal with what might occur, which i guess is probably only a few.

One trick armies were a part of the game, they have now introduced a system where a random dice roll might stop it.  Those armies are still as good, if not better because they will now be facing more 'rounded' armies which wont be built to counter.  Chances are they will still win tournaments because people will play them, and it will only be by chance that they get stopped in their tracks. Chance cant stop everyone.

If only there was some sort of mechanic to include wizards and other melee units... some sort of ... allies system or something. You could even limit it by a certain fraction of the maximum points allowance for the game, and if you get really crazy you can even ensure that you have a certain ratio of allied units to allegiance units... someone should tell the rules writers.

I feel like that would be the best way to help KO get the wizard they need.

[stato]

2 minutes ago, Unit1126PLL said:

If only there was some sort of mechanic to include wizards and other melee units... some sort of ... allies system or something. You could even limit it by a certain fraction of the maximum points allowance for the game, and if you get really crazy you can even ensure that you have a certain ratio of allied units to allegiance units... someone should tell the rules writers.

I feel like that would be the best way to help KO get the wizard they need.

Yawn. Yes you can ally, that should not be a requirement to have a chance in the game.

Why has this approach to responding to people become so popular on here.  No discussion just sarcasm. Not even a response to the other points.

25 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Hmm

Thats pretty ****** response too @amysrevenge, you seemed better than that.

[amysrevenge]

Yeah more words would have helped.  They would have said the same thing, just less rudely.  Actually, if you just imagine my other post about gimmicks was in place of the Hmm then I think it works OK.  Sorry to @Dead Scribe

[Unit1126PLL]

Just now, stato said:

Yawn. Yes you can ally, that should not be a requirement to have a chance in the game.

Why has this approach to responding to people become so popular on here.  No discussion just sarcasm. Not even a response to the other points.

Allies aren't a requirement to "have a chance in the game." You always "have a chance." Go punch those wizards in the face; it's not like most of them are good in combat, and you can fly over the real combat units. KO Units aren't hitting on 6's in combat or anything.

And I don't know what discussion you want me to have. I offered you a solution: "take allies". Your retort was "nuh, I dun wanna" (in so many words).  What do you expect me to say? "Ok, then don't take allies, but then you're back to the one-trick-pony problem and are being silly because you won't fix it." Is that the type of response you were hoping for?

[amysrevenge]

2 minutes ago, stato said:

Yawn. Yes you can ally, that should not be a requirement to have a chance in the game.

Why has this approach to responding to people become so popular on here.  No discussion just sarcasm. Not even a response to the other points.

As far as this part goes, it is because it is the literal answer to the question. 

KO (and BCR and Fyreslayers and Dispossessed) can and do have wizards.  If you don't want to use them it's not a hole in the rules, it is a self-imposed restriction outside the rules.

 

[DantePQ]

Sure and every tournament will be broken by Nagashes blasting all Realm spells plus some more every turn and now you can even Alpha strike him and then move. 

Realms rules are horrible to play at tournaments, some armies won't be able to optimize, take KO they are done in every battle in Uglu. 

And having ally Wizards doesn't help much because they are nowhere near as good as faction specific wizards. 

[Lord_Skrolk]

Seems like it's getting testy. Let's try to move this in a more positive discussion, because underlying everyone's comments there is an interesting discussion

Currently, competitive Age of Sigmar matches are won/lost by listbuilding much more than tactics. If I have a collection of mixed Destruction units, and my opponent brings a Tzeentch Changehost/Khorne Pilgrim list and has a basic knowledge of how to play, I'm going to lose. Is that a good or a bad thing? I can see reasonable people falling into either side. 

My *opinion* is that Age of Sigmar needs to shift more to being won and lost with tactics rather than the right combo of units. For example, Khorne player won (or finished top 3) with a list that was literally line everyone in a row across the board, turn 1 charge everyone and win with overlapping synergies that delete everything they touch. With all due respect to that player for making a great designed list... isn't that a perversion of what tabletop gaming should be to some extent? There's not really strategy, trying to outmaneuver, react to changing conditions, etc. 

Too many games of Age of Sigmar are won or lost on turn 1 based on whether the list's gimmick was successful. And it takes away so much of the strategy that there could be to this game, which feels like a shame to me

Curious what people think! I love the realm rules because it shifts much more of the thinking *during* the game rather than perfecting a list in the days before. 

[Unit1126PLL]

Just now, Lord_Skrolk said:

Seems like it's getting testy. Let's try to move this in a more positive discussion, because underlying everyone's comments there is an interesting discussion

Currently, competitive Age of Sigmar matches are won/lost by listbuilding much more than tactics. If I have a collection of mixed Destruction units, and my opponent brings a Tzeentch Changehost/Khorne Pilgrim list and has a basic knowledge of how to play, I'm going to lose. Is that a good or a bad thing? I can see reasonable people falling into either side. 

My *opinion* is that Age of Sigmar needs to shift more to being won and lost with tactics rather than the right combo of units. For example, Khorne player won (or finished top 3) with a list that was literally line everyone in a row across the board, turn 1 charge everyone and win with overlapping synergies that delete everything they touch. With all due respect to that player for making a great designed list... isn't that a perversion of what tabletop gaming should be to some extent? There's not really strategy, trying to outmaneuver, react to changing conditions, etc. 

Too many games of Age of Sigmar are won or lost on turn 1 based on whether the list's gimmick was successful. And it takes away so much of the strategy that there could be to this game, which feels like a shame to me

Curious what people think! I love the realm rules because it shifts much more of the thinking *during* the game rather than perfecting a list in the days before. 

I agree with you, and that's the point I was trying to make. Instead of deckbuilding to get off your combo like in Magic: The Gathering, with the only counterplay being "can my own combo go off first", it's perhaps best to build an army with a variety of tools and little combos and then try to implement those tools in the best and most efficient way possible, given the scenario. Is shooting debuffed because of the Realm of Shadow? Good thing I have these Stormcast allies with hammers!

[amysrevenge]

I had heard somewhere (here on TGA I assume) that the teleporty-bits of Ulgu sort of made up for the range reduction bits in some ways.  In the way that sober reflection always tempers immediate gut reactions...

[DantePQ]

In theory it might look that way but the best combo still wins. My Daughters of Khaine are only stronger using Realm rules and spells so is Kroak or Nagash (real power creep with those two having access to 7 extra spell) 

[Mr. White]

32 minutes ago, Lord_Skrolk said:

With all due respect to that player for making a great designed list... isn't that a perversion of what tabletop gaming should be to some extent?

From my table, it seems that tournaments in general are a perversion. Campaign systems for tabletop gaming I get. They allow players to mimic and play out a war as armchair generals leading their armies across lands. Taking attrition, gaining resources, etc. A narrative of the army unfolds as the game progresses...much like real world warfare.

Tournaments are single games in isolation. They don't reflect anything but one off games.  No war is ever fought like this.

Again, if a gamer just wants to compete in highly competitive, balanced, singular games....why not a game that shines in that style.  Like Chess or something?

Perhaps, it's just me though, and I should stay out of tournament threads. Stick to Open Play and Narrative...

[Overread]

Don't forget this is only GW's suggestion. In truth it really changes nothing that wasn't true yesterday save for if you attend an official GW tournament. It might at least present things in a clear visual way to players to note what variations there are and also points out the important thing, which is that no matter what the TO decides to do they inform players BEFORE they attend the event what the event will include and won't include. 

[grungolah]

It will be fine.  The good players will find new ways to stomp us..

[RuneBrush]

I feel that this article does a really good job of explaining that AoS isn't a rock, paper, scissors game.  If you have a one trick pony then at some point you're going to find a scenario that completely shuts down your army.  It works both ways too, sometimes you'll get something beneficial and sometimes not.

I can also see what people are saying about there being a chance that a shooting army is hampered by a reduction in range - but let's be honest, how many tournaments have people played at where the (lack of) scenery allows them free range to kill everything on the board?

What I think is going to happen is we're going to get six months or so where TO's experiment with different ways of implementing Realm Rules and similar.  This coming weekend is Blackout where we've been told what Realm & Realmscape Feature we're getting for each battle.  I'm sure that later on in the year it'll be rolled for randomly and at some point there will be a general consensus on a happy-medium on what feels right.

[DantePQ]

It's the worst idea ever and it won't change anything  but  will make some already established builds much, much stronger. It won't add variety in lists, it will only deepen the gap between armies. Look at some examples :

- Nagash will be able to blast 7 spells a turn with ease with wide access to different spells, he won't even need extra Death wizards to use their spells with access to 7 new spells. 

- Kroak the same as above

- Daughters of Khaine - only, stronger, Morathi with some of the spells and double range will be insane, also you can teleport her and then move&charge in one realm

- Sylvaneth Gnarlroot with acess to realms spells, teleports, extra rend for KH - sure let there be a magic, another army blasting 6-10 spells a turn. 

Right now all those armies with potential to cast multiple spells with huge cast bonuses were somewhat in check. Nagash has to take nercomaces and you can single them out to make him worse, Kroak didn't have access to extra spells, Gnarlroot didn't have spells to cast after they put some Wylwoods on the table. 

Realm rules are just badly written for example if it was one extra spell to use - sure that could work but extra 7 spells to choose from ? That's insane. 

Then there are some crazy realm specific rules and command abilities on top of it in a game when some armies doesn't have battalions or/and easy ways to generate CPs it's more power to armies like Sylvaneth (as both great battalions give you 2 extra CPs), Death or Seraphons.

Where are any drawbacks for those armies ? I don't see any.

[ianob]

No matter what side of the argument you’re on over realm rules, “Look, a bunch of rules that buff some armies and nerf others depending on the matchup.... guess I best make my alpha strike better so I can ignore these rules as well as most of the other interaction my alpha strike army is already ignoring” is the only thing this will actually do to high level competitive play.

[DantePQ]

2 minutes ago, ianob said:

No matter what side of the argument you’re on over realm rules, “Look, a bunch of rules that buff some armies and nerf others depending on the matchup.... guess I best make my alpha strike better so I can ignore these rules as well as most of the other interaction my alpha strike army is already ignoring” is the only thing this will actually do to high level competitive play.

Alpha strike will be in majority of games only way to counter stupidity of Nagash, Kroak, Gnarlroot with 7 extra, free and powerful spells.