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

[JackStreicher]

20 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

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.

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

[Skabnoze]

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

This is true.

But sometimes things happen in the game that you cannot avoid and then you have to try to play around.  This is just another one of those things.

[amysrevenge]

10 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

More like:  now let's see how you can deal with that.

 

(There are so many other effects that you can't prevent, as my good friend @Skabnoze posted while I was typing haha)

[Sedraxis]

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

This is exactly how some armies work to begin with, the realms at least change it up a bit. And now everyone has access to it too!

[Unit1126PLL]

 

12 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

My issue with some of the Death rules rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:
"I rolled a 14 to cast Vile Transference and now one of your units suffers 2d3 wounds: your hero is dead. Nothing you could have done to prevent that. Also, I heal those wounds because reasons."

[Richelieu]

16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

It's not roll a 6 and do d6.  It's roll a 6, then another 6, then a d6.

You do understand that there is less than a 1% chance of a standard 5 wound hero getting killed in this manner and that you are just as likely to do the same to your opponent, right?

[BaldoBeardo]

11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

My issue with some of the RSF rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:

Aqshy: I rolled a 6 at the table and now one of your units suffers D6 wounds: your hero is dead - nothing you could have done to prevent that.

I think it entirely fitting that tabletop games allow you to witness such miniature homages to the demise of Major General John Sedgwick.

 

 

[DanielFM]

4 minutes ago, Unit1126PLL said:

 

My issue with some of the Death rules rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:
"I rolled a 14 to cast Vile Transference and now one of your units suffers 2d3 wounds: your hero is dead. Nothing you could have done to prevent that. Also, I heal those wounds because reasons."

Nice sarcasm there. If you have a +2 to unbind you can still avoid it. If you have an autounbind, you can stop It. Those are rare, but exist.

A way to avoid the Realmscape MWs? Nope, none at all.

Even you hyperbolic example failed to prove your point.

[Kramer]

5 hours ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Realm of life has a spell that needs to be errattad. The Mirrorpool spell says to remove the caster from the battlefield and set them up wholly within 18" of their starting location.  Unlike other "teleport" abilities, this one has no resriction on movement.  I was able to get turn 1 charges with Nagash...  Felt real bad about it, definitely needs the clause that it "counts as movement".

 

You should feel bad for casting lore of life spell with the lord on Nagash  

But I agree with the main sentiment here. It's a good thing but there are some wierd things in there. But the only way to get them out is by using the rules, finding the quirks and GW is quite fast with updates and errata's. So for me it's a big yes (with the slight ceavat that this is the absolute limit of different rules I can remember/look up while not feeling like an administrator in my own game. )

[Skabnoze]

27 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I think it entirely fitting that tabletop games allow you to witness such miniature homages to the demise of Major General John Sedgwick.

They couldn't hit an Arachnarok at this distance...

[tokek]

2 hours ago, murphs said:

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.

Having faced pretty much that situation at Warhammer World at the weekend[1] I would say that you can either learn to love a challenge or perhaps what you need is a more predictable game without dice and stuff. Finding ways to make those games winnable is what makes you get out of your usual gaming rut and really win the game on the table and not in list building.

Having played a tournament (40K) with the very random Open Play cards I say give it a go with the distinctly less random realm rules and it might work out just fine. As others have noted it does force you to try to put tools on the table for unpredictable circumstances which I believe will move things rather away from super-extreme lists if you actually want to win. If you just want to smash stuff and don't mind taking the odd smashing in return then nothing has changed.

[1] I was playing Tau (long range shooting army) and the scenario limited shooting to 12" all game - and randomly put the sole objective on the furthest part of the table from me so I had to go right through a much more choppy army without the chance to shoot it up first and win an objective that he was already camping on. That I left my opponent with a couple of 3+ saves to hold on for the win with the last rolls of the game is a high point of my gaming experience, although he did make those saves and hence I lost.

[JackStreicher]

37 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

It's not roll a 6 and do d6.  It's roll a 6, then another 6, then a d6.

You do understand that there is less than a 1% chance of a standard 5 wound hero getting killed in this manner and that you are just as likely to do the same to your opponent, right?

Yep, it‘s still pretty unfun and happened twice already -__-' (5 games, twice that RSF and my mage got fried, also there was a nice crispy slaughter queen xD)

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Unit1126PLL said:

 

My issue with some of the Death rules rules is that you have no chance to avoid them:
"I rolled a 14 to cast Vile Transference and now one of your units suffers 2d3 wounds: your hero is dead. Nothing you could have done to prevent that. Also, I heal those wounds because reasons."

You could have packed a hero with an auto-unbind.

[Rachmani]

4 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Yep, it‘s still pretty unfun and happened twice already -__-' (5 games, twice that RSF and my mage got fried, also there was a nice crispy slaughter queen xD)

But how often has something in your army (or your opponents) done something super unfun.

I think that competitive play has at its core something unfun. List building as of now is, at its core all about redundancies. 

You don‘t do halfassed alpha strikes. Nobody wants to rely on 2 4+ saves to determine the winner. The list goes on.

So you optimise & we end up with Rock Paper Scissors lists (and egg, egg gets crushed by rock, engulfed by paper & hacked open by scissors).

And that‘s pretty stale... .

but now, what if you add rules - Realm of Battle - that will or at least can punish overly specialised lists.

All of a sudden there is an incentive to diversify & more so to rely on tactics also, not just strategy.

 

Now, of course, Realms of Battle might be flawed in their execution & some armies might not be able to pull off balanced lists - even with allies, and be it, that it just looks and feels ****** to ally dunno Khorne with Tzeentch.

But so are Nagash and his powerhouse friends, and KO where never an all to well designed army to begin with. And both holds true without Realm of Battle shenanigans.

So we can at least give them a try. Who knows, maybe something good arises? (Like, a new Stormchast Chamber? >.< )

[JackStreicher]

I agree =} (we use the rules for friendly games) though for the tournament I am running (story driven Tourney) we try to get old 8th edi. Players interested, they might be put off by the realmscape rules I am afraid

[LLV]

Okay 2 cents time....

I'm not sure why people are so bothered by this. If tournament organizers use the realm rules (or any rules in fact) and you're not happy with the, vote with your feet and dont go. TO's will get the message what people do and dont want at events and adjust accordingly. If you're a TO and are against the realm rules - dont use them. 

B.O.B.O happened last weekend and didnt use the realm rules. It was a huge success with diverse armies in the top and people all had a great time. Blackout is coming this weekend and will use the realm rules. I am sure it will also be a huge success and people will have equally as good of a time. However, If the realm rules somehow negatively affect the play experience at Blackout I am sure it will documented and I am sure TO's will assess what is best for the players (and their attendance) moving forward.

Capitalism at its finest!

 

[LLV]

14 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I agree =} (we use the rules for friendly games) though for the tournament I am running (story driven Tourney) we try to get old 8th edi. Players interested, they might be put off by the realmscape rules I am afraid

If you're afraid players wont like the realm rules in your tournies - dont use them. It's really that simple.

[lolwut]

It's unfortunate that this has such a backlash. Realm rules add a layer of depth and flavor to the game. If AoS was perfectly balanced I would say sure, let's pause on adding these rules, but it seems odd to choose one rule over another. It's perfectly acceptable for a Tzeentch player to summon a free Lord of Change,  or one player to get 2 turns in a row, yet heaven forbid a  realm effect procs mid game.  This like any other game has a huge dependency on luck. I just do not understand why one kind of imbalance is preferred to another. 

[ianob]

21 minutes ago, LLV said:

 

B.O.B.O happened last weekend and didnt use the realm rules. It was a huge success with diverse armies in the top and people all had a great time. Blackout is coming this weekend and will use the realm rules. I am sure it will also be a huge success and people will have equally as good of a time. However, If the realm rules somehow negatively affect the play experience at Blackout I am sure it will documented and I am sure TO's will assess what is best for the players (and their attendance) moving forward.

Capitalism at its finest!

 

With such diverse army builds as:

-Stormcast Melee alpha strike

-Idoneth Melee alpha strike

-Sylvaneth Melee alpha strike

-Khorne Melee alpha strike

-Order Draconis Melee alpha strike

 

Ita a good job we have the realm rules to use in matched play to prevent all of those undesirable gunlines and spell heavy armies from ruining such a diverse meta!

[swarmofseals]

On the one hand, I really very much appreciate the idea behind what GW is doing here. There are realm rules that really punish a particular thing, so the realm rules encourage more well rounded list building. Some factions are inherently narrow in focus, so I can see why certain players would be upset by this. I still like the idea though.

Access to lots of new spells certainly helps some armies more than others, but I can't make any claims as to whether or not the end result is balanced or not. Time and testing will tell. Any grand pronouncements about how balanced/imbalanced the realm magic is (at least now that banishment is fixed...) are premature. 

On the other hand, there are a couple of realm rules that are really problematic from a tournament standpoint. The biggest, by far, is Ghur. In order to compete in a Ghur match you basically have to bring an extra monster with you to the tournament. God forbid a 5 or 6 gets rolled on the realmscape table -- then you need an extra monster for each battle round. So if you want to have the best possible chance of winning in a prospective Ghur battle you need to bring six extra monsters to the tournament. Since there are absolutely no restrictions aside from it having to be a monster that isn't a hero, it behooves you to bring the biggest, nastiest monsters possible. I suspect that the optimal choice is the Magma Dragon from forgeworld. So if you really want to have the best possible chance at your tournament using realm rules, you should bring six Magma Dragons in addition to your regular army. Even feeling the need to bring one extra magma dragon is ridiculous.

Ghyran is also problematic, albeit somewhat less so. To have the best possible chance on Ghyran you need to bring at least one Sylvaneth Wyldwood to the tournament as there is a chance you will be given an opportunity to set one or more up for free. It's possible you should bring more. 

The idea that every tournament player who wants to have their best chance at winning needs to bring wyldwoods and extra monsters (likely forgeworld ones at that) in addition to their army to a tournament is just not reasonable or tenable. 

[LLV]

4 minutes ago, ianob said:

With such diverse army builds as:

-Stormcast Melee alpha strike

-Idoneth Melee alpha strike

-Sylvaneth Melee alpha strike

-Khorne Melee alpha strike

-Order Draconis Melee alpha strike

 

Ita a good job we have the realm rules to use in matched to prevent all of those undesirable gunlines and spell heavy armies from ruining such a diverse meta!

Touche - however I'd argue the Stormcast were setup as more of a counter punch force. "Jack" of all trades (pun intended) if you will.

Also bare in mind some of the army choice at BOBO was dictated by how much alcohol a person could consume and still do ok. I heard on stream the Draconis Player went into his g3 on saturday on 12 pints!

 

[lolwut]

2 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

On the one hand, I really very much appreciate the idea behind what GW is doing here. There are realm rules that really punish a particular thing, so the realm rules encourage more well rounded list building. Some factions are inherently narrow in focus, so I can see why certain players would be upset by this. I still like the idea though.

Access to lots of new spells certainly helps some armies more than others, but I can't make any claims as to whether or not the end result is balanced or not. Time and testing will tell. Any grand pronouncements about how balanced/imbalanced the realm magic is (at least now that banishment is fixed...) are premature. 

On the other hand, there are a couple of realm rules that are really problematic from a tournament standpoint. The biggest, by far, is Ghur. In order to compete in a Ghur match you basically have to bring an extra monster with you to the tournament. God forbid a 5 or 6 gets rolled on the realmscape table -- then you need an extra monster for each battle round. So if you want to have the best possible chance of winning in a prospective Ghur battle you need to bring six extra monsters to the tournament. Since there are absolutely no restrictions aside from it having to be a monster that isn't a hero, it behooves you to bring the biggest, nastiest monsters possible. I suspect that the optimal choice is the Magma Dragon from forgeworld. So if you really want to have the best possible chance at your tournament using realm rules, you should bring six Magma Dragons in addition to your regular army. Even feeling the need to bring one extra magma dragon is ridiculous.

Ghyran is also problematic, albeit somewhat less so. To have the best possible chance on Ghyran you need to bring at least one Sylvaneth Wyldwood to the tournament as there is a chance you will be given an opportunity to set one or more up for free. It's possible you should bring more. 

The idea that every tournament player who wants to have their best chance at winning needs to bring wyldwoods and extra monsters (likely forgeworld ones at that) in addition to their army to a tournament is just not reasonable or tenable. 

This would be a double edged sword, though. These monsters are not under your control automatically. Your opponent can also control them. 

That said, this is a tournament organizer problem, not a rules problem. This one instance of a rule could cause problems, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.  And frankly if I show up and lose because 6 magma dragons are just rolling me that's that. It's not like my entry card to heaven gets punched if I win a sigmar tournament.

[swarmofseals]

2 minutes ago, lolwut said:

This would be a double edged sword, though. These monsters are not under your control automatically. Your opponent can also control them. 

That said, this is a tournament organizer problem, not a rules problem. This one instance of a rule could cause problems, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.  And frankly if I show up and lose because 6 magma dragons are just rolling me that's that. It's not like my entry card to heaven gets punched if I win a sigmar tournament.

It's a double edged sword where the edge is WAY sharper on one side. You get to set the model up 9" away from your opponent after setup. That's pretty much a guarantee that you will control that monster on turn 1. Given that you can then move and charge with that monster on turn 1 (with essentially guaranteed success), you can then position that monster in such a way that you are very likely to continue to control it for the vast majority of the game. If for some reason there is no way to set it up such that you would get immediate control, you can simply choose to not set a monster up at all. 

Insofar as TOs have the authority to adjust the rules however they want, every rule could be argued to be a TO problem and not a rules problem. That argument just doesn't sit well with me.

While you may be fine with losing a round to the guy who showed up with extra monsters just in case, there are many players for whom that would create a very bad experience -- particularly new players that might not understand all the realm rules to start and who might not know that forgeworld even exists. 

[Sleboda]

43 minutes ago, LLV said:

I'm not sure why people are so bothered by this. If tournament organizers use the realm rules (or any rules in fact) and you're not happy with the, vote with your feet and dont go. TO's will get the message what people do and dont want at events and adjust accordingly. If you're a TO and are against the realm rules - dont use them. 

As I have stated, I am in favor of the Realm rules, but I wanted to address this idea, because I see it often and usually feel like it needs to be countered. So, here goes:

No such thing as bad pizza, just some's bett'r 'n others.

Plus, if you can only get pizza once or twice a year, you'll take the anchovies.

 

In certain parts of the world, there are events dozens of times per year.  Not so for others.

America, for example, is a huge place with large areas that have little going on. So, when an event does happen to pop up that is less than a six hour drive away one way, and it may be the only event (new people, cool armies, chance to escape home life for a day, etc.) a player will get to for the next 6-9 months, the player goes - even if the rules are not to his or her liking.

The alternative is to sit home and do nothing wit your toys. And no, "just run your own event" is not for everyone. Not only would that person face the issue of few gamers in the area, but not all personalities are suited to running an event.  Some people just want play, not take charge and work for a weekend while everyone else has a blast playing and socializing.

 

So, yes, it's true that you can choose to not attend. but it's not a reasonable option for some, which means tournaments end up being attended even when their rules are not great. It creates a false sense that people liked the rules. This is why feedback forms are vital and why TOs need to have thick skins and open minds when reading them.  In fairness, when people do attend an event with rules they dont' like, they really should be proactive and submit thoughtful feedback as well.  Simply not going is not the answer.

[blueshirtman]

2 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

This is true.

But sometimes things happen in the game that you cannot avoid and then you have to try to play around.  This is just another one of those things.

Only that lowers the number of actually playable armies. If lets say one out of X realms screws over shoting armies and shoting units, then the shift is going to be to use stuff that either can ignore it or not taking range units ever. Now in a perfect world this would be bad, but not horrible. In real life, you go and tell KO player that shoting does not work. Now maybe if AoS was 1000pts played with 2 or 3 lists brought to events, the problems would be less bad. Could even add more depth to list building. Maybe the lists can be played back to back, maybe some units can't pop up in all lists etc.

 

Plus it is not just the bad stuff that happens to some armies or debuffs they suffer from. I don't think that many people, want to see a round being won on a  regular basis, just because the realm it is being played it favors LoN a lot.