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

[Aginor]

Are people still in fear of Kroak? After that nerf?

Well, anyways: I do like that suggestion GW makes. And I do think it will have an impact. I just can't say how big it will be yet.

[amysrevenge]

9 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

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

I think you greatly overestimate the skills and model collections of the typical tournament gamer.   Alpha strike might dominate the top tables, maybe.  But us mid-table chumps with Ogors or whatever will still be plugging our way along.

[DantePQ]

Just now, amysrevenge said:

I think you greatly overestimate the skills and model collections of the typical tournament gamer.   Alpha strike might dominate the top tables, maybe.  But us mid-table chumps with Ogors or whatever will still be plugging our way along.

Ok I got it but with Realm Rules your battles against Kroak or Nagash or Gnarlroot will be over long before deployment. That's why Realm Rules at tournaments are horrbile idea as they will only deepen the gap between armies. And trust be I wasn't always good comeptitve player and playing by being blasted off the table when you can't do anything is terrible feeling ad that's what realms rules are pushing. 

[SuperHappyTime]

I’d be a yes because they are interesting rules.

But I’m a solid no because it’s just one more thing to remember to write.

[amysrevenge]

7 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Ok I got it but with Realm Rules your battles against Kroak or Nagash or Gnarlroot will be over long before deployment. That's why Realm Rules at tournaments are horrbile idea as they will only deepen the gap between armies. And trust be I wasn't always good comeptitve player and playing by being blasted off the table when you can't do anything is terrible feeling ad that's what realms rules are pushing. 

I have played plenty of games that were over before deployment.  I played my last pre-AoS2 game with my Ogors against a perfectly crafted Changehost.  This is an issue with battletomes and warscrolls.  It's always been there.  And I don't think it's a demonstrated/proven slam dunk that Realm rules only make it worse.

[SuperHappyTime]

4 hours ago, Enoby said:

They said that it was because units were pointed with realm of battle in mind, and that they are meant to protect against extreme (sometimes referred to as 'min-maxed') armies dominating. 

I believe that they have tried to set up with those goals in mind, but I’d be a fool to believe they are going to succeed at this goal during the first go-around.

[Infeston]

I have to say that I really like it that GW published a statement about the confusions on how this game is played. The way the game is played at tournaments greatly affects the way that people also play in more casual settings or local groups, because the tournament way is often considered to be the "right way" to play this game (even though I don't agree on this). 

So I think this will also have a big impact on more casual games and the way AoS is played "normally". And I really hope that people will use all the cool and optional rules in their games. 

I mean you can still cut out some "Optional Rules" and still use other "Optional Rules". But what I also found interesting that GW considers "Warscroll Battalions", "Pitched Battles" and "Allegiance Abilities" as "Optional Rules" in the same way as "Malign Sorcery", "Endless Spells" and "Realm of Battle" rules.

So even if you agree on only taking certain Optional Rules you also have to justify why you remove the other ones, because (as GW said) the game is balanced around all of those rules being included. Now all the optional rules are on the same level. 

I think now the only pure way to play the game without optional rules also means playing without allegiance abilities and  battalions.

I think this community article was very good and I appreciate this statement. ? 

[Lord_Skrolk]

1 hour 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. [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]

If you think the thing holding back KO from being competitive in AOS 2.0 is the Realm Rules then I have some bad news for you...

Until GW decides to stop trashing KO for no good reason (I feel for KO players, beautiful models that deserve better treatment than you're getting), there honestly isnt a competitive build besides their one exact clown car build and even that rarely does well in tournies. But that's a separate discussion and the realm rules can't be blamed for that 

[Rachmani]

I for one, like the idea.

It might need finetuning, maybe even an overhaul somewhere down the line.

But we will not know, if we don‘t try. And beer & brezel games won‘t test it properly. 

It‘s basically the same thing as with some units. „OP“ on paper... pretty much ok in reality - and vice versa.

[Richelieu]

19 minutes ago, Lord_Skrolk said:

If you think the thing holding back KO from being competitive in AOS 2.0 is the Realm Rules then I have some bad news for you...

Until GW decides to stop trashing KO for no good reason (I feel for KO players, beautiful models that deserve better treatment than you're getting), there honestly isnt a competitive build besides their one exact clown car build and even that rarely does well in tournies. But that's a separate discussion and the realm rules can't be blamed for that 

I agree.  Not only that, but for the realm rules that harm shooting armies, there are also ones that help them tremendously, like an additional -1 rend to shooting in Aqshy, or no running in Ghyran.  Over the course of a tournament these should even out to a fair extent.  

On Saturday I played against LoS in Shyish with my stormcast.  Every piece of terrain gave -1 bravery.  I had a unit of 20 sequitors sitting at two bravery get battleshocked into oblivion, but I won the game because I played the objectives and didn't give up when the odds were against me.  I get that many armies don't have access to well rounded lists, but this is a problem with the factions, not with the realm rules. 

It just seems to me that realm rules are a really strange thing to dig in your heels about considering all the other random facets of the game.  I've played with them in every game of AoS 2 so far and have found them good additions.  

On the plus side, at least people have found something other than the double turn to complain about.  ☺️

[Paul Buckler]

Big fan of this post, gives guidance to TO's who were unsure of what to do.  Those with an idea for their event already will go that way, so this just helps out those less certain.

AOS is a competative game, but perfect balance is almost impossible.  These, for me, make the game  have more options to be fun, and that's what AOS should be, first and foremost fun to play.

The good players will find ways to be competative whatever system you give them, these additions just mean they have a bit more to think about, (maybe even bringing an even better standard of player to the top), while guys like me get to mess around in Ghur with their fun giant model they painted especially.

Def some over negativity here, thought that of recent times TGA was moving forwards from that, shame to see it return.

Be good to see these implemented in different ways across the UK tournament scene, help bring variety to events, so they dont all become the same pack over and over again.

 

 

 

[murphs]

How do you handle some of the realmscape features? Such as Ulgu 2 which limits ranged attacks and spells to 6". That's completely game breaking and there's probably worse I'm not thinking of.

[Skabnoze]

2 hours ago, stato said:

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

Allies are not a requirement to have a chance at the game.  You can win a lot of games with a weakness in an army.

But going to a highly competitive environment like a tournament and not using all of the tools at your disposal is effectively a self-imposed handicap. You can still possibly win, but it is likely to be harder given that other people are going to be using all of the tools and you have chosen to ignore some of them.  It seems absurd to complain about that situation.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Infeston said:

I have to say that I really like it that GW published a statement about the confusions on how this game is played. The way the game is played at tournaments greatly affects the way that people also play in more casual settings or local groups, because the tournament way is often considered to be the "right way" to play this game (even though I don't agree on this). 

So I think this will also have a big impact on more casual games and the way AoS is played "normally". And I really hope that people will use all the cool and optional rules in their games. 

I mean you can still cut out some "Optional Rules" and still use other "Optional Rules". But what I also found interesting that GW considers "Warscroll Battalions", "Pitched Battles" and "Allegiance Abilities" as "Optional Rules" in the same way as "Malign Sorcery", "Endless Spells" and "Realm of Battle" rules.

<snip image>

So even if you agree on only taking certain Optional Rules you also have to justify why you remove the other ones, because (as GW said) the game is balanced around all of those rules being included. Now all the optional rules are on the same level. 

I think now the only pure way to play the game without optional rules also means playing without allegiance abilities and  battalions.

I think this community article was very good and I appreciate this statement. ? 

4

100% this.  The tournament philosophies tend to trickle down to affect games of any variety, whether it's local events, club/game night, even campaigns.  So GW saying all these optional rules are part of the balance is great for exactly the reasons you stated: It puts them all on the same page.  Saying you want to use Battalions but not Malign Sorcery, for instance, now requires justification for why Battalions are okay but Malign Sorcery is not.  I also like the last idea you stated, that playing "pure" AOS without optional rules also means not using battalions or allegiance abilities (which, now that I think about it, could make for an interesting format since most factions rely on battalions and/or allegiance abilities to become good.  I'm pretty sure, for instance, that the Sylvaneth Wyldwood summoning is part of their allegiance abilities.).

[Ravinsild]

4 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

I like this- as others have said it stops people building a list that does one thing very well and I feel like it'll be a bigger test of people's skill. Seems like the US scene is like the 40k scene- winning is everything and anything that makes that harder is not liked, hobby and fluff be damned. 

Yeah I wish there was a group of Englishmen here who played or I could to move to England or something with relaxed attitudes..

[Ravinsild]

4 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

It does sort of feel like the equivalent of playing football and saying "I'll only play a game on astroturf, with a size 4 ball and if the other teams wear these shoes, if the weather is 19-21 degrees and if it's a clear sky". The whole challenge is the unknowable opponent list, the table and (now) the game-specific rules. 

It'll be interesting to see reports from tournaments that do use the rules. 

Oh, I think your meaning Football to what we call soccer haha. 

However yes, it does feel that way. The worst part about this whole atmosphere is the try hards. 

If you don’t know what a try hard is it is someone that mimicks the professionals, uses their lists and tries to do what they do.... but they aren’t actually good. They’re rules lawyers that nitpick everything and.... well try really hard but their capability does not match that of “pros” and so they lose.... a lot. Then blame everything but themselves (“your army is OP, these realm rules are ******! I just rolled really bad! If you didn’t have this I would have won” etc) and rage really hard when they lose. 

[BaldoBeardo]

"My point and click army list isn't guaranteed to work any more? What should I do?"

 

[JackStreicher]

In an upcoming tournament we won‘t use them yet. My issue is that it gets pretty unfair if one realmscape feature stays for the entire game. Rerolling every battleround might be okay.

[Ravinsild]

2 hours ago, 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. 

To be fair.... his list is entirely fluffy, and Khorne in the lore only has 1 gimmick. His entire “shtick” is run at someone screaming with rage and beat them to death with whatever weapon you have on hand, spill their blood and collect their skulls. Wash rinse repeat until you die. 

The bloodier the fighting the more the warp thins out and eventually Bloodletters start pouring through relishing in the battle and start murdering everything alongside the mortals. 

Khorne doesn’t really use tactics or strategy, other than absolutely overwhelming brute force. This is how World Eaters fight and how everything in the The Goretide fights. 

So I’ll defend the Khorne player by saying lining up across the board and charging ASAP and spewing as much dice as possible is literally the only option. Without allying wizards (and even if you do, running Gore Pilgrims makes it harder for you to cast yourself as well) there’s no magic, and definitely no shooting save Khorgorath and Skull Cannons (which you might not have) and nothing beyond the combat phase. 

Theyre the opposite of T’au who have no magic (psychic phase) and no combat and only shooting. I guess KO are the Tau of AoS? 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, DantePQ said:

, some armies won't be able to optimize

Exactly. That's the point.

The rules are another factor for a list builder to consider. When they do, they will likely come to the conclusion that they need a list that has flexibility rather than one that is optimized to succeed in more narrow tabletop conditions.

 

Someone somewhere posted that a some players (the kind that Dead Scribe seems to embody, I think) seem to want the AoS equivalent of an American football game where the rules are restricted to only allow 2 passes per drive, never touch the QB, and fumbles cannot be recovered by the other team, all while being played only in a dome at 2 p.m. on Wednesdays (or some such). Then tell the coaches and owners to build the best team to exploit that narrow, restricted set of conditions that don't even use the full rules of football.

Realm rules still very much are the rules of AoS, and if people have to expand the variety in their lists to account for them, it's now clear that this is no different from having to account for Alpha Strikes or wizards with awesome spells.

It's not the end, just the end of a customized set of highly specific conditions that let you win with gimmicks and less variety.

 

I am all for it. It might mean more tournaments for me since I'll see more different stuff instead of 7 copies of the same list each time.

[Lord_Skrolk]

33 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

"My point and click army list isn't guaranteed to work any more? What should I do?"

 

The first time I have ever laughed out loud at a post in TGA 

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

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. 

Yes, now TOs will actually know that their "great ideas" of how the game "should" be played are in actual opposition to how it was designed to be balanced.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

for the realm rules that harm shooting armies, there are also ones that help them tremendously, like an additional -1 rend to shooting in Aqshy, or no running in Ghyran.  Over the course of a tournament these should even out to a fair extent.  

I've never been able to get behind that idea, and it's one that TOs have often used to justify the horrors of their self-made scenarios.

Having a shooting boost scenario does not balance out a shooting penalty one. 

Timing is critical. So is your army. If your army doesn't shoot and you face another non-shooter in the boost scenario, who cares? Then you face a shooter in the penalty scenario and get a perk.

Just like in hockey or football when you get the penalty matters, not just that both sides got the same amount.

[BaldoBeardo]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Yes, now TOs will actually know that their "great ideas" of the game "should" be played are in actual opposition to how it was designed to be balanced.

Can't help but notice GW list the "Pitched Battle" rules as optional. Don't see many people complaining about having to use those... ?

The realm rules are a good idea. If nothing else, they interrupt the slow march toward [rhymes with] "Bore machine" where the label says "aggressive tactical play" but in actual fact as long as the competitors aren't drooling gibbons you can predict results by looking at lists.

Also, the realm rules affect both players, not just you. Focus here seems to be on the issues with that rather than the opportunities, which speaks volumes.

[Skabnoze]

49 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Oh, I think your meaning Football to what we call soccer haha. 

The same analogy works in American Football - especially the comment about playing on astro-turf and without weather.  How many NFL teams and QBs have issues with weather?  Some teams play better in the cold, like the Packers, and that gives them an advantage.  Some QBs are notorious for playing poorly in weather conditions.  Drew Brees is almost night & day in regards to his passing statistics when it is broken down by indoor stadiums and outdoor ones.

The analogy still works because while teams sometimes find themselves with advantages & disadvantages due to location the disadvantaged teams still need to find a way to overcome and win.  Teams have to adjust their game plans, sometimes drastically, to deal with these factors - for example when  there are high winds and/or rain the passing game becomes more dangerous and less reliable.

It seems to me that the realm rules add a bit of this concept to the game.  If they are in effect then you potentially have to adjust how you list-build in order to make sure playing in a particular realm does not overtly harm you.  Then you also need to adjust your in-game tactics so that you can maximise the realm effects to your own benefit and mitigate the negative effects against you.