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

[Ravinsild]

3 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

What about armies where shoting is suppose to replace the lack of magic caster, or which GW themselfs created in a such a way that they lean on their shoting abilities to do anything?

I play Ironjawz and Khorne. I have almost no shooting and by default am very vulnerable to armies with a lot of shooting. 

You don’t see me crying about it. Every list and army I lose against I just research my army better and try to bring a different perspective or list. I try to deploy differently and use different tactics. I don’t cry and go “ban all shooting waaaaaah!” 

[Gotrek]

9 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Wat. Why is a new player who barely knows what the game is at a tournament competing with the highest level of players? 

I mean I guess there’s always the people who have played a video game for 3 seconds and immediately jump into ranked (if there aren’t barriers preventing that which most games have) but why would you then be salty you lost against the most prepared and the best players because you were so new you had not read the realm rules and clearly understood them and didn’t know what Forgeworld was..... 

this is a stupid argument that makes no sense. 

Not all tournaments are adepticon, the LVO or the SCGT. What i mean by that is there are plenty of tournaments that arent where the warhammer elite duke it out. In these tournaments its perfectly reasonable for a new-ish player to show up and just test themselves. Play against new people instead of his/her 1 friend that split the starter with them. In this situation its certainly plausible that the player isnt up to speed on malign sorcery or forgeworld (maybe they looked at the cost of the models and just "nope'd" right on out of there without looking at the rules. Or maybe they didnt see anything attractive for their army). 

Now, i am all for using the realm rules. But i would VERY much like to see them included in the event pack because it can make a difference. If i know ulgu is on the table why would i bring KO? Or invest in artillery of any stripe? Forget "gunlines arent fun" ulgu just flat out says "if it has a ranged attack its dead points". 

[Black Blade]

12 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. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head and I say this as a member of the states. I dont know why but people are quite competitive here even in non-tournament settings. When AoS first arrived I asked to have my liberator prime from the starter set count as having a grandhammer given that the starter hadn't come with the option, I think 1 out of 10 people thought it was an ok request I was baffled.

[Ravinsild]

33 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

Not all tournaments are adepticon, the LVO or the SCGT. What i mean by that is there are plenty of tournaments that arent where the warhammer elite duke it out. In these tournaments its perfectly reasonable for a new-ish player to show up and just test themselves. Play against new people instead of his/her 1 friend that split the starter with them. In this situation its certainly plausible that the player isnt up to speed on malign sorcery or forgeworld (maybe they looked at the cost of the models and just "nope'd" right on out of there without looking at the rules. Or maybe they didnt see anything attractive for their army). 

Now, i am all for using the realm rules. But i would VERY much like to see them included in the event pack because it can make a difference. If i know ulgu is on the table why would i bring KO? Or invest in artillery of any stripe? Forget "gunlines arent fun" ulgu just flat out says "if it has a ranged attack its dead points". 

I’m very pro realm rules and I plan on taking Khorne or Ironjawz to the next Nashcon. Which is in June or July next year. Here’s hoping I can get a list painted... heh. I paint suuuuuuper slow because I want every model to look duncan Rhodes quality lmao. So it’s taken me 2 months to paint 12 Blood Bowl linemen and they’re not even that good hahaha. 

I was just skeptical about this whole “I started two weeks ago and now I’m in a tournament” person... 

i started in September 2017 but somehow I quickly found out what ForgeWorld was and now I’m using the conversion sets to make “official” world Eaters  

Lately I’ve been practicing getting all the wording on all my rules down perfectly (*cough only MODLES [not units] within 3” of Wrathmongers get extra attacks and only units who CHARGED get +1 to wound via Lord of Khorne on Juggernaut. Whoops. Been doing it wrong... :/) and paying attention to my deployments and planning on going second and trying to think turns ahead and imagine a double turn etc... 

i might be an overly cautious and preparation heavy type person though and most tournament people just wing it and try their best?

Also I’ve been experimenting with Wizards in Khorne and planning on how to get their casts off before I plant my Bloodsecrator and my “order of operations” so to speak. I personally don’t like shooting, but I’m aware we have some, including Chaos Maurauders on Horses with Javelins, Skullcannons and Khorgoraths have a little. 

If I find lack of shooting to really, really, reaallllllyyy be a problem in tournaments then by all means I will adapt and buy some skullcannons and maurauders and whatever other allies may be available. 

Right now I’m handicapping myself to almost no shooting out of the belief that Khorne can win without it, but I’m all for balanced lists. 

I often try to bring a little of everything - anti-heavy (big character, monster or hero with tons of wounds and damage), anti-Horde, anti-elite (multiwound infantry that kicks ass like Brutes or Skullreapers), anti-magic and so forth.  

[Black Blade]

51 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

Not all tournaments are adepticon, the LVO or the SCGT. What i mean by that is there are plenty of tournaments that arent where the warhammer elite duke it out. In these tournaments its perfectly reasonable for a new-ish player to show up and just test themselves. Play against new people instead of his/her 1 friend that split the starter with them. In this situation its certainly plausible that the player isnt up to speed on malign sorcery or forgeworld (maybe they looked at the cost of the models and just "nope'd" right on out of there without looking at the rules. Or maybe they didnt see anything attractive for their army). 

Now, i am all for using the realm rules. But i would VERY much like to see them included in the event pack because it can make a difference. If i know ulgu is on the table why would i bring KO? Or invest in artillery of any stripe? Forget "gunlines arent fun" ulgu just flat out says "if it has a ranged attack its dead points". 

To be fair if you're going to a tournament at all with any notions of competition why are you taking K Overlords at all?

[swarmofseals]

1 hour ago, Ravinsild said:

Wat. Why is a new player who barely knows what the game is at a tournament competing with the highest level of players? 

I mean I guess there’s always the people who have played a video game for 3 seconds and immediately jump into ranked (if there aren’t barriers preventing that which most games have) but why would you then be salty you lost against the most prepared and the best players because you were so new you had not read the realm rules and clearly understood them and didn’t know what Forgeworld was..... 

this is a stupid argument that makes no sense. 

You don't think relatively new players ever go to tournaments? I'm not talking about GTs, just FLGS type events. And you don't have to be "one of the best players" to dump well over $100 on a forge world monster that isn't even part of your army and get a free win at a tournament because you brought a spare magma dragon and your opponent didn't. 

In 40k where Forgeworld is more prevalent I might be more inclined to agree with you, but the percent of AOS players that use FW stuff is much, much smaller. If your main exposure to your hobby is through your FLGS and local play group rather than online discussion you might not know much about FW. Maybe things are different in the UK, but in the US it's a huge pain even getting FW models. 

[Gotrek]

21 minutes ago, Black Blade said:

To be fair if you're going to a tournament at all with any notions of competition why are you taking K Overlords at all?

 Because you enjoy them? Because its what you have painted? Because you arent looking to get a trophy? Why did people bring death armies in 2017? Why do people still show up with destruction lists? Theres a difference in wanting to be competitive and just wanting to make sure you bring an army capable of playing and ulgu says you dont get to play if you are a ranged force.

[angrycontra]

You know why I'm against these realm rules? Because they raise overall negative vibe among players. Just look at this thread to see what I mean. You got some players who hate these rules with burning passion and think that they're the worst addition to the game. Then on the other end of the spectrum you got what I like to call "aggressive defenders", people who call others lame/boring for not liking these rules (they may not say these things directly, but the tone of their writing tells all). Of course there's lots of players who are pretty ok with them either way, but negative emotions can spread and reduce the motivation to continue this hobby. I mean heck, we already have KO players in this thread being annoyed by the possibility that their army might be useless in realm x (a problem they really CAN'T build around). Is that what this hobby should be? Don't bring army x 'cause it's gonna suck if you get bad realm rules? How about army like dispossessed? Oh no you got realm rule "can't run" now you gotta walk 6 turns to reach that objective 24" away, and how do you even build around that? You have to take fast units as allies but you also need wizards as allies for some scenarios and 400 points is just not enough. Dispossessed are not top tier army sure, but I doubt anyone likes game where their only option is to aim for draw/minor victory and just sit on their objectives.

Now before anyone else says, yes I admit, I'm more on the negative camp myself regarding these rules. I've already discussed in other threads why I find them bad for the game so I'm not gonna repeat those points here. Ultimately I just find these rules to be unnecessary hassle and I just don't buy that silly claim by gw that armies were point balanced with realm rules in mind. In controlled enviroment like tournament that dictates all realm rules before hand I can tolerate these rules, but completely random rules is not good for the game imo. And like many have said already, realm of beasts is just stupid in tournaments unless TOs bring large number of beasts on tables themselves (or use paper models, but nobody likes some cardboard cutout).

[froo]

1 hour ago, Gotrek said:

Forget "gunlines arent fun" ulgu just flat out says "if it has a ranged attack its dead points". 

I play grots.. the majority of my ranged attacks are 16" and all of my guys shoot. 

4 out of 6 of the results on the realmscape features for Ulgu have little to no effect on me. Having a cursory look over Kharadron Overlords (which a lot of people are complaining about) they're in a similar situation (the majority of their weapons are either 12" or 18".)

 

I think that anyone that is outright dismissing an entire set of rules where there is only a 1 in 3 chance of an unfavourable result, from a single realmscape (there are 7 realmscapes), is being obtuse. If you can't outshoot your opponent because of realmscape, play the objectives. You don't need to wipe your opponent off the board to win.

[Hvy]

I noticed a lot of people are mentioning Ghur- what happens if you don't bring a monster model if you get that option? Do you auto-lose? And if you only bring 1 monster and the selection comes up a second time, then what happens? 

I'm not seeing as you need to bring 6, or even 1, monster if you don't have it. Am I reading the Realm rules wrong?

[DanielFM]

6 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

No army lacks a wizard.  Every army has a wizard.  KO, Fyreslayers, BCR, tiny GHB factions.  All of them.  Choosing not to use them is a self-restriction, not a rules problem.

Come on, is it so difficult to understand that many players want to play Kharadron/Fyreslayers, not Duardin with Stormcasts tacked on with no aesthetical or thematic coherence?

Wanting to go to a tournament and to not get stomped shouldn't automatically make you ignore that. Many people can't stand allies because they want to play the army they chose, not a mix of armies. Heck, I'm lucky I play SCE and don't need allies, because I hate them.

Allies should be a mechanic which can be used optionally to give armies extra tools, not a core mechanism in which whole armies rely to work.

[froo]

46 minutes ago, Hvy said:

I noticed a lot of people are mentioning Ghur- what happens if you don't bring a monster model if you get that option? Do you auto-lose? And if you only bring 1 monster and the selection comes up a second time, then what happens? 

I'm not seeing as you need to bring 6, or even 1, monster if you don't have it. Am I reading the Realm rules wrong?

No you're not. I had this same discussion when it first came out. Just because I deploy a monster, doesn't necessarily mean I get to control it either if my opponent outplays me.

I think in a tournament setting, it would be ideal to set the points limits for monsters (I think using the allies points values would make sense) but its not a requirement. I really think that knowing that those realms will be used in advance would be key.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, angrycontra said:

 I mean heck, we already have KO players in this thread being annoyed by the possibility that their army might be useless in realm x (a problem they really CAN'T build around).

We really should not be using a single army as a data point against an entirely new section of the core rules.  That issue is for GW to fix and KO is already quite obviously an army that did not come out of the oven quite right in regards to rules.  I am pretty sure that GW is aware that KO needs a book pretty badly for a variety of reasons - but mainly because a huge chunk of the text within that book is not relevant as it is currently sold.

That said, I'll bite a bit because I keep seeing the above statement mentioned.  KO has a fair emphasis on shooting, but that is not the sole function of the army.  They have 4 infantry units and 2 of those units are pretty good in melee and one is mediocre.  There is only a single unit out of those 4 that is designed primarily as a long-ranged firebase unit.  People may currently like to try to convert the other units into long ranged units by taking small units and filling them full of the specialty weapons - but that does not change the fact that they can be configured to fight at close range.

The idea that there is no way to build KO so that they can fight in closer space to the enemy just does not fit with weapon profiles of the units.  This army was obviously designed to try to be a mid-ranged combined arms force with high mobility.  The sad thing is that GW did not quite directly hit that nail and instead what people built were either super concentrated alpha-strike lists or long ranged guns.  The fact that most of the default weapons for this army are fairly close range implies that GW intended for them to primarily fight within striking distance from the enemy.

Is it the most optimized build?  Probably not, but it would perform better in a range-restricted environment.  This army has more issues against it currently than the prospect of fighting with the 2 of the 6 Ulgu Realmscape features.

[Skabnoze]

So, when GW said that they recommend events use the Realm of Battle rules they never said that the rules are expected to be used exactly to the letter and without any input or adjustment from TOs.  They even stated that in the article and made some suggestions at how TOs could possibly handle it.

The core rules have both players collectively place the terrain on the battlefield, but people are perfectly fine letting the TOs set up the terrain on the event tables before hand.  The scenario rules have tables to decide which scenario is played, but people are perfectly fine letting TOs determine which scenarios are used in the event and at which turns.  The core rules have players roll up the scenery rules (damned, arcane, mystical, etc) for the scenery on the table, but I am sure most players are perfectly OK with TOs marking which terrain has which effect on each table.  So why should these Realm of Battle rules be any different?

Using the Realm of Battle rules in an event does not mean everything has to be selected at random.  The TO could easily decide the realms before hand and make them available to be known in the event pack.  From there the TO could decide either to not include the Realmscape Features rules or could preselect which ones would be used in each realm.  They could even publish them in the event pack. 

For example, a 5 round event might say in it's pack that the following realms & realmscape features will be in effect on certain rounds of the event:

• Ghyran - Fecund Quagmire (limits mobility - makes flying valuable)
• Shyish - Haunted Realm (makes all terrain sinister)
• Aqshy - Flaming Missiles (bonus to long-range attacks)
• Chamon - Irresistable Force (makes magic stronger)
• Ulgu - Darkly Shaded (18" max range on shooting & magic)

Now people attending the event know what effects they will encounter in each realm and can build their army accordingly.  That is also a reasonable list that gives advantages and disadvantages to most parts of the game (moving, shooting, combat, battleshock, magic).  Now you know that if you go all-in on one specific niche skew that you run the risk of having at least one round that is quite unfriendly to you.  More well-rounded lists are less likely to struggle overtly at any point due to the realm rules.  If the TO wants to go one step farther they can select specific realms & realmscape features to augment specific scenarios.

Just because someone includes the Realm of Battle rules does not mean that they cannot be used in a controlled way.  Playing a game in Ulgu does not mean immediate loss for an army with a lot of ranged attacks.  Not every game in Ulgu will use the Impenetrable Gloom feature that restricts all attacks to a max range of 6".  In fact, I expect that particular realmscape effect will almost never end up used in a large event.

And even the odder realms like Ghur can still be implemented in a controlled way.  For example, if the event publishes that at least one round will take place in Ghur the TO could require players to include in their submitted army list the beast they will use for Ghur - and they could even put a points restriction on it.  For example, the event could allow players to use an extra monster for the Ghur event that they bring with their army, but the player has to include that monster as an entry on their list and no monster could have a points value greater than 300 (or whatever).  Now people know ahead of time to bring an extra monster and there is a limitation to prevent situations where someone brings the most expensive Forgeworld monster they can find - like a Magma Dragon or something.

The point here is that while some of the realm of battle rules very negatively impact certain types of armies, they don't all have that effect and the system seems easy for TOs to incorporate in a way that does nudge players to less specialized lists and adds the unique flavor of the realms.  I am sure that if TOs start to explore using the Realm rules that they will collectively iron out a pretty good way to handle them that most event-goers will either enjoy or not find too restrictive.

We should let the event organizers try out these rules a bit before we all lose our collective minds.  I bet they will surprise us.

[tokek]

6 hours ago, murphs said:

Do not patronize me.

If I am playing my Freeguild army and I'm limited to 6" range on my missile weapons, I lose. There is no challenge, other than that to my patience.

A challenge is if someone slaps 12 Fulminators down on the board, it is not the total negation of one of the phases of the game.

Freeguild have some pretty decent melee options available to them. They have some  mobile units to play a game of manoeuvre rather than a static sit and shoot game. It is your choice not to take any of those options so if this situation comes up and you lose it is because of the choices you made.

 

[pseudonyme]

Lots of common sense here. I like it. ?

[tokek]

58 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

So, when GW said that they recommend events use the Realm of Battle rules they never said that the rules are expected to be used exactly to the letter and without any input or adjustment from TOs.  They even stated that in the article and made some suggestions at how TOs could possibly handle it.

The core rules have both players collectively place the terrain on the battlefield, but people are perfectly fine letting the TOs set up the terrain on the event tables before hand.  The scenario rules have tables to decide which scenario is played, but people are perfectly fine letting TOs determine which scenarios are used in the event and at which turns.  The core rules have players roll up the scenery rules (damned, arcane, mystical, etc) for the scenery on the table, but I am sure most players are perfectly OK with TOs marking which terrain has which effect on each table.  So why should these Realm of Battle rules be any different?

Using the Realm of Battle rules in an event does not mean everything has to be selected at random.  The TO could easily decide the realms before hand and make them available to be known in the event pack.  From there the TO could decide either to not include the Realmscape Features rules or could preselect which ones would be used in each realm.  They could even publish them in the event pack. 

For example, a 5 round event might say in it's pack that the following realms & realmscape features will be in effect on certain rounds of the event:

• Ghyran - Fecund Quagmire (limits mobility - makes flying valuable)
• Shyish - Haunted Realm (makes all terrain sinister)
• Aqshy - Flaming Missiles (bonus to long-range attacks)
• Chamon - Irresistable Force (makes magic stronger)
• Ulgu - Darkly Shaded (18" max range on shooting & magic)

Now people attending the event know what effects they will encounter in each realm and can build their army accordingly.  That is also a reasonable list that gives advantages and disadvantages to most parts of the game (moving, shooting, combat, battleshock, magic).  Now you know that if you go all-in on one specific niche skew that you run the risk of having at least one round that is quite unfriendly to you.  More well-rounded lists are less likely to struggle overtly at any point due to the realm rules.  If the TO wants to go one step farther they can select specific realms & realmscape features to augment specific scenarios.

 

This is almost exactly what we should expect tournaments to do - the generation of exact realm optoins does not need to be totally random and they can choose not to use results which they believe will skew games too hard.

I would like to see them not reveal all the realm details until the start of the event - to put more emphasis on playing skill and less on list building - but we will see how they go on that. That recommendation from GW makes sense to me. The tournament pack need say no more than no two games will be in the same realm and that alone will push players to much more well rounded lists.

[Rachmani]

1 hour ago, Skabnoze said:

So, when GW said that they recommend events use the Realm of Battle rules they never said that the rules are expected to be used exactly to the letter and without any input or adjustment from TOs.  They even stated that in the article and made some suggestions at how TOs could possibly handle it.

The core rules have both players collectively place the terrain on the battlefield, but people are perfectly fine letting the TOs set up the terrain on the event tables before hand.  The scenario rules have tables to decide which scenario is played, but people are perfectly fine letting TOs determine which scenarios are used in the event and at which turns.  The core rules have players roll up the scenery rules (damned, arcane, mystical, etc) for the scenery on the table, but I am sure most players are perfectly OK with TOs marking which terrain has which effect on each table.  So why should these Realm of Battle rules be any different?

Using the Realm of Battle rules in an event does not mean everything has to be selected at random.  The TO could easily decide the realms before hand and make them available to be known in the event pack.  From there the TO could decide either to not include the Realmscape Features rules or could preselect which ones would be used in each realm.  They could even publish them in the event pack. 

For example, a 5 round event might say in it's pack that the following realms & realmscape features will be in effect on certain rounds of the event:

• Ghyran - Fecund Quagmire (limits mobility - makes flying valuable)
• Shyish - Haunted Realm (makes all terrain sinister)
• Aqshy - Flaming Missiles (bonus to long-range attacks)
• Chamon - Irresistable Force (makes magic stronger)
• Ulgu - Darkly Shaded (18" max range on shooting & magic)

Now people attending the event know what effects they will encounter in each realm and can build their army accordingly.  That is also a reasonable list that gives advantages and disadvantages to most parts of the game (moving, shooting, combat, battleshock, magic).  Now you know that if you go all-in on one specific niche skew that you run the risk of having at least one round that is quite unfriendly to you.  More well-rounded lists are less likely to struggle overtly at any point due to the realm rules.  If the TO wants to go one step farther they can select specific realms & realmscape features to augment specific scenarios.

Just because someone includes the Realm of Battle rules does not mean that they cannot be used in a controlled way.  Playing a game in Ulgu does not mean immediate loss for an army with a lot of ranged attacks.  Not every game in Ulgu will use the Impenetrable Gloom feature that restricts all attacks to a max range of 6".  In fact, I expect that particular realmscape effect will almost never end up used in a large event.

And even the odder realms like Ghur can still be implemented in a controlled way.  For example, if the event publishes that at least one round will take place in Ghur the TO could require players to include in their submitted army list the beast they will use for Ghur - and they could even put a points restriction on it.  For example, the event could allow players to use an extra monster for the Ghur event that they bring with their army, but the player has to include that monster as an entry on their list and no monster could have a points value greater than 300 (or whatever).  Now people know ahead of time to bring an extra monster and there is a limitation to prevent situations where someone brings the most expensive Forgeworld monster they can find - like a Magma Dragon or something.

The point here is that while some of the realm of battle rules very negatively impact certain types of armies, they don't all have that effect and the system seems easy for TOs to incorporate in a way that does nudge players to less specialized lists and adds the unique flavor of the realms.  I am sure that if TOs start to explore using the Realm rules that they will collectively iron out a pretty good way to handle them that most event-goers will either enjoy or not find too restrictive.

We should let the event organizers try out these rules a bit before we all lose our collective minds.  I bet they will surprise us.

That basically sums it up.

It‘s not like TO will all suddenly succumb to the charms of total and utter randomness, throw their hands in the air and scream „HALP! WHAT WE DO?“

And then organise their tournament as a secret or not so secret offering to the big 4 and everything becomes a random role rollercoaster.

It‘s well within their power to do... well what you summed up above. It‘s like using common sense!

[Black Blade]

4 hours ago, Gotrek said:

 Because you enjoy them? Because its what you have painted? Because you arent looking to get a trophy? Why did people bring death armies in 2017? Why do people still show up with destruction lists? Theres a difference in wanting to be competitive and just wanting to make sure you bring an army capable of playing and ulgu says you dont get to play if you are a ranged force.

Take it easy, I was just making a crack about the current state of KO. I'm not a WAAC player either.

[DanielFM]

1 hour ago, Skabnoze said:

So, when GW said that they recommend events use the Realm of Battle rules they never said that the rules are expected to be used exactly to the letter and without any input or adjustment from TOs.  They even stated that in the article and made some suggestions at how TOs could possibly handle it.

The core rules have both players collectively place the terrain on the battlefield, but people are perfectly fine letting the TOs set up the terrain on the event tables before hand.  The scenario rules have tables to decide which scenario is played, but people are perfectly fine letting TOs determine which scenarios are used in the event and at which turns.  The core rules have players roll up the scenery rules (damned, arcane, mystical, etc) for the scenery on the table, but I am sure most players are perfectly OK with TOs marking which terrain has which effect on each table.  So why should these Realm of Battle rules be any different?

Using the Realm of Battle rules in an event does not mean everything has to be selected at random.  The TO could easily decide the realms before hand and make them available to be known in the event pack.  From there the TO could decide either to not include the Realmscape Features rules or could preselect which ones would be used in each realm.  They could even publish them in the event pack. 

For example, a 5 round event might say in it's pack that the following realms & realmscape features will be in effect on certain rounds of the event:

• Ghyran - Fecund Quagmire (limits mobility - makes flying valuable)
• Shyish - Haunted Realm (makes all terrain sinister)
• Aqshy - Flaming Missiles (bonus to long-range attacks)
• Chamon - Irresistable Force (makes magic stronger)
• Ulgu - Darkly Shaded (18" max range on shooting & magic)

Now people attending the event know what effects they will encounter in each realm and can build their army accordingly.  That is also a reasonable list that gives advantages and disadvantages to most parts of the game (moving, shooting, combat, battleshock, magic).  Now you know that if you go all-in on one specific niche skew that you run the risk of having at least one round that is quite unfriendly to you.  More well-rounded lists are less likely to struggle overtly at any point due to the realm rules.  If the TO wants to go one step farther they can select specific realms & realmscape features to augment specific scenarios.

Just because someone includes the Realm of Battle rules does not mean that they cannot be used in a controlled way.  Playing a game in Ulgu does not mean immediate loss for an army with a lot of ranged attacks.  Not every game in Ulgu will use the Impenetrable Gloom feature that restricts all attacks to a max range of 6".  In fact, I expect that particular realmscape effect will almost never end up used in a large event.

And even the odder realms like Ghur can still be implemented in a controlled way.  For example, if the event publishes that at least one round will take place in Ghur the TO could require players to include in their submitted army list the beast they will use for Ghur - and they could even put a points restriction on it.  For example, the event could allow players to use an extra monster for the Ghur event that they bring with their army, but the player has to include that monster as an entry on their list and no monster could have a points value greater than 300 (or whatever).  Now people know ahead of time to bring an extra monster and there is a limitation to prevent situations where someone brings the most expensive Forgeworld monster they can find - like a Magma Dragon or something.

The point here is that while some of the realm of battle rules very negatively impact certain types of armies, they don't all have that effect and the system seems easy for TOs to incorporate in a way that does nudge players to less specialized lists and adds the unique flavor of the realms.  I am sure that if TOs start to explore using the Realm rules that they will collectively iron out a pretty good way to handle them that most event-goers will either enjoy or not find too restrictive.

We should let the event organizers try out these rules a bit before we all lose our collective minds.  I bet they will surprise us.

That sounds pretty reasonable. If TO choose Realmscape features that are mostly neutral or even up across the different rounds (you benefit flyers -remember, we have almost wholly flying armies now- in one game, you nerf them in others), the system could be implemented in a balanced way.

I would add some restrictions to Realm spells (choose one for each wizard, or even for all of them) to not hand them like candy to Nagash/Tzeentch/magic heavy armies while others get nothing. Completely within the reach of a tourney rules pack.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

As for the rules for picking the realm that a battle takes place in, the first idea that jumps out to me would be for the TO to announce in the event pack which realms will be used for each round in the tournament.

For example, in the event pack it could say: round1 = shyish, round 2 = aqshy, etc etc.

Noooooo .....

That defeats how the balance comes in. If you can plan the realms, you can still optimize. Even their own new chart says to not show the Realm until right before the game.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

yeah, because having all shoting ranges halfed is not an auto lose to KO

It's not.

Words matter.

It's hella tough, but not an auto lose.

 

People really need to start taking hyperbole and misuse (****** "meta" ****** "power creep" and ****** "tax") out of these conversations if we want to be productive.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, DanielFM said:

Come on, is it so difficult to understand that many players want to play Kharadron/Fyreslayers, not Duardin with Stormcasts tacked on with no aesthetical or thematic coherence?

Yes.

These are tournaments. Competitions. 

Not your basement.

If you go to an event where the focus is on completing for a series of wins, please don't complain that your deliberately hamstrung army could not complete when the options were available.

 

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the joy of fielding an army with a particular theme for a fun afternoon with a buddy, but that's not what a tournament is. 

[Greyshadow]

I'm not a tournament player so you might be wondering why I am chiming in! ? I appreciated the acknowledgement that the points have been determined with realm rules, realm, malign sorcery and endless spells taken into account. For me as a gamer amongst a small close-knit group giving players the option to take endless spells without feeling like they are being beardy is a good thing. I thought the article was great and of course they would be encouraging players to enjoy all the cool rules they have created.

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

Just a reminder that we're talking about GW's suggestion at how to incorporate things like Realm Rules in tournaments/matched play - this isn't a thread to moan that a couple of realmscape features make certain [ Kharadron / Beastclaw / Other ] builds not work as optimally as they would without them.