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

[ianob]

7 hours 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 do realise that probably 75% of every tournament is made up of people who play a bit, dont practice all the time, love the game and love events right? Events arent exclusively for people who practice all day, and there are no "tiered" events for pros and amateurs. Things that make the game less accessible for people are not good.

If Realms definitively added to the game experience, there might be an argument to say that they were worth the drop in accessibility. But given that it is a hotly debated topic whether realms add anything (at best they're a neutral addition, trying to be unbiased) then the extra level of faff simply ends up detracting from the game as a whole.

And I say all of this as someone who has absolutely no problem learning new rules, and someone who's current army benefits 100% from realm rules in all of their forms. I'm not against realm rules for personal reasons. I just don't think they achieve what GW apparently think they do.

[Nubgan]

I think that it is nice that they are trying to get people to write more varied lists like the article suggests. And its awesome that they gave people so much variety in the first place.

I guess the one counter arguement to the whole approach is that some armies can't write these varied lists because of the unit choices they have available.

It is the cookie-cutter/flavour of the month approach that has given me anxiety about going to these events and doing badly because I don't play often at all. If everyone is encouraged to write more varied lists it can only improve things no?

[Overread]

Also don't forget many Tournaments are one-off events for Warhammer. It's not like sports where there's a league that units teams and competitions over the country into a series of competing events with each event raising the standard higher and higher. Each tournament is basically operating on its own so they will often contain the full run of players from the super competitive and experienced all the way to the brand new players who went along because everyone else in the club is going (and heck most are just club level events anyway so the entire club is there - probably on the regular club night). 

Warhammer has a long way to go if it wants to arrive at a serious "sport" level of competition and it has nothing to do with the game rules; but rather to do with how the whole competing element is organised, judged, structured and interlocked between events. Arriving at standards, codes of practice etc...

 

For all its age Warhammer hasn't got anywhere near the same level of competitive organisation that, say, Magic the Gathering has. GW taking a step back and even shutting down their own system likely didn't help matters and GW has never really followed that pattern of wanting to become a sport. This might change, geek hobbies becoming a sport structure is now not only actually viable; not only socially popular but can also turn a very healthy profit for the company. 

That said I still think GW doesn't quite want to go down that path - I think that maintaining the hobby side - painting building etc. - is still important to them. 

[DanielFM]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

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. 

So for you there is only "lolfunzies" and "srsbsns" in AoS, with nothing in between. You are either a casual which plays for laughs in your basement and care not about winning or losing, or a super pro tournament player which only cares about winning.

And you are worried about hyperbole ? that's one of the worst oversimplifications I have read in TGA. And a harmful one, for the hobby.

[murphs]

3 hours ago, tokek said:

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.

 

Khorne can ally in some pretty decent Tzeentch daemons. It is your choice to play a game of movement and close combat. If, for example movement and charges are reduced to  max 3" and you lose, that's on you pal.

[BaldoBeardo]

If you're playing purely for the fun/participation then use what you like and go for rule of cool.

If you're playing for fun but would like to actually win some games too, then you need to look at all your options critically and seriously consider impact of stuff like realms.

If your sole aim is your name on the winner's trophy and you think you can do that without considering any and all unit options available to you in context of possible setbacks (like a bad realm matchup), you're either deluded or don't want to have to admit to yourself that it's your list - rather than you - that wins you games.

[murphs]

32 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

If you're playing for fun but would like to actually win some games too, then you need to look at all your options critically and seriously consider impact of stuff like realms.

Fair enough. No KO or Freeguild players need apply.

[Dead Scribe]

I think from a tournament player perspective, you'd definitely never take a shooting based army to an event anymore with these rules in effect.

[Infeston]

7 hours ago, angrycontra said:

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 just wanted to comment on your post. I can totally understand your fear. But I also think if we would remove realm rules there would be a lot of people also complaining about this. If you remove them you will have people complaining and if you add them people will complain. 

It is very often a typical human reaction to react this way to change. If you argue that we should remove those rules, because of the conflicts they produce, you could also argue that we shouldn't make any changes to the game at all.  Every kind of change will always raise discussions, frustration or fears. 

I also complained about all the changes they did on BCR, but now I have made my piece with that and can live with that. 

[Overread]

IF we removed rules/elements that create a passionate response from the community we'd fast end up demanding GW made a preprinted, high grade, super cheap price game where each unit is basically identical to the next. In fact we'd also demand pre-designed boards and we'd probably end up with chess; just way more pretty than standard.

 

One way to consider realm rules being used in a more active manner is that it means GW will get more feedback on the system. This might result in changes that benefit the game in the long term. Consider how quickly people have accepted, encouraged and want to see more endless spells; to see them better balanced and part of their game experience. Realm stuff can be the same if its tamed to behave itself.

 

I think one thing might be fairer is if GW stopped doing realm rules on a "roll a dice" system. Sure its optional to roll and is presented as such; but it still creates a sense of the realm being very random in an already random game. This is purely a wording and display aspect. If GW gave 6 options and said "pick one and agree with your opponent which" and then said "or if you can't roll a dice" that would be seen differently too "here are 6 options, roll a dice to work out which you will use" . 

[AlphaKennyThing]

Games Workshop make the game amd write the rules and suggest for optimal AoS use the rules. Tournament organisers are free to remove specific realm rules or spells as they see fit.

If you don't mind the rules, then there are lots of tournaments you can go to. If there are rules and spells that are seriously breaking things (with evidence, not based on theories) pass it on to Gee Dubz and they can amend it. 

If you hate the rules, don't go to tournaments that use them. If that turns out to be all of them, then the problem is more likely to be with your personal preferences than anything to do with the game. If so, run your own tournament that doesn't use them.

It all seems fairly simple to me!

[BaldoBeardo]

38 minutes ago, murphs said:

Fair enough. No KO or Freeguild players need apply.

I'd suggest buying fresher grapes. As has already been pointed out, both these armies have build options that don't rely on the shooting phase.

Don't rely on every game being the battle of Agincourt.

 

[Lord_Skrolk]

52 minutes ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

Games Workshop make the game amd write the rules and suggest for optimal AoS use the rules. Tournament organisers are free to remove specific realm rules or spells as they see fit.

If you don't mind the rules, then there are lots of tournaments you can go to. If there are rules and spells that are seriously breaking things (with evidence, not based on theories) pass it on to Gee Dubz and they can amend it. 

If you hate the rules, don't go to tournaments that use them. If that turns out to be all of them, then the problem is more likely to be with your personal preferences than anything to do with the game. If so, run your own tournament that doesn't use them.

It all seems fairly simple to me!

/edit/

It's also weird when people just redirect convos about the game to "If you care, talk to GW directly". How are people supposed to crystallize their thoughts in the first place without bouncing their ideas off of others and seeing both sides of the debate?  Also if GW had to handle every thought every single person had on the game they would literally not have the time to read it all haha. 

/edit/

MOD EDIT: Please try and be respectful of other members - if you take exception to a post, there is a report button and the mods will handle it.

User edit: Fair enough mod, my wording was probably harsher than I intended so I'll leave it and we can all be happy 

[chord]

Why not play just with the 14 pages of rules, and ignore the extra realm stuff (both army and realmscape)?  

[AlphaKennyThing]

20 minutes ago, Lord_Skrolk said:

/edit/

It's also weird when people just redirect convos about the game to "If you care, talk to GW directly". How are people supposed to crystallize their thoughts in the first place without bouncing their ideas off of others and seeing both sides of the debate?  Also if GW had to handle every thought every single person had on the game they would literally not have the time to read it all haha. 

/edit/

MOD EDIT: Please try and be respectful of other members - if you take exception to a post, there is a report button and the mods will handle it.

It's not so much redirecting the conversation, there's plenty of people chatting here as usual and working out the niff, naff and trivia of the realm rules.

You'll notice there are also a few who are not up for debating anything, and have decided that XYZ elements are broken and that the game is made infinitely worse by using such rules, that some armies may as well not even turn up to tournaments because reasons. That's great, but my previous post applies fully here.

I'm personally all for a chat about what rules are going to be interesting to encounter, what ways you can mitigate or play to its effects, and what ones might be really entertaining.

The back and forth of 'they've ruined the game' vs 'I think they'll be decent' is getting a bit tedious though.

When I have my core book to hand I shall attempt to pick a realm we can dig out for pros and cons, perhaps we can collectively start to develop a list for what works well in each realm.

[murphs]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I'd suggest buying fresher grapes.

 

And now we finally get to the nub of the issue.

[Richelieu]

19 minutes ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

When I have my core book to hand I shall attempt to pick a realm we can dig out for pros and cons, perhaps we can collectively start to develop a list for what works well in each realm.

Thinking maybe we should start a thread for each realm.  I was just looking at Aqshy again and I think it would be a blast to play a game with every single realm scape feature in effect.  It would be bananas, but there's nothing in there that seems terribly imbalanced other than shooting armies would have a bit of an advantage.  

[Ravinsild]

4 hours ago, ianob said:

You do realise that probably 75% of every tournament is made up of people who play a bit, dont practice all the time, love the game and love events right? Events arent exclusively for people who practice all day, and there are no "tiered" events for pros and amateurs. Things that make the game less accessible for people are not good.

If Realms definitively added to the game experience, there might be an argument to say that they were worth the drop in accessibility. But given that it is a hotly debated topic whether realms add anything (at best they're a neutral addition, trying to be unbiased) then the extra level of faff simply ends up detracting from the game as a whole.

And I say all of this as someone who has absolutely no problem learning new rules, and someone who's current army benefits 100% from realm rules in all of their forms. I'm not against realm rules for personal reasons. I just don't think they achieve what GW apparently think they do.

Clearly I didn’t realize this as I’ve never been to an event. 

Here I was thinking it was all pros that would crush my soul if I didn’t get a lot of practice and preparation in..

edit: and you may be wondering why I thought events were tightly oiled machines of hyper competitive players only playing at the highest caliber with the best possible lists and players. And if you’re wondering that it’s like you haven’t read anything online ever (Reddit, WarhammerCompetitive, literally here, Dakka Dakka, etc) 

I don’t see too many super new people who barely have a grasp on the rules posting their sick tournament lists. Blood of Kittens and other such tournament list compilation sites only seem to post from those huge “pro” events or whatever as well. 

Based on what’s reported and the way people talk about tournaments it’s pretty easy to come away with the impression they’re for hard core players only and scarred veterans that have been playing for several years. 

[BaldoBeardo]

36 minutes ago, murphs said:

 

 

[Ravinsild]

4 hours ago, murphs said:

Khorne can ally in some pretty decent Tzeentch daemons. It is your choice to play a game of movement and close combat. If, for example movement and charges are reduced to  max 3" and you lose, that's on you pal.

He didn’t use the word ally. He used the word units, which implies they’re already options in the army. 

Swear on me mum I’m about to take my 900$ tax return, buy a SCE army or something and make them ONLY shooting and show up to the next available and closest tournament and just go as far as I can. Idk maybe I’ll buy KO or Freeguild. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Latest Stormcast discusses this. And restates game balance is built around using the realm rules. Without using the realm rules - quote - "certain builds of armies are more effective than they should be and drive people to take those builds".

It's also intended that organised / matched play events should reward system mastery and place the emphasis on skill.

[DanielFM]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I'd suggest buying fresher grapes. As has already been pointed out, both these armies have build options that don't rely on the shooting phase.

Don't rely on every game being the battle of Agincourt.

 

Please show me a competitive, interesting, 2000 points Kharadron  list that doesn't rely on long range shooting. Please.

Maybe you are reading a different battletome than the one I do.

[Ravinsild]

3 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

Please show me a competitive, interesting, 2000 points Kharadron  list that doesn't rely on long range shooting. Please.

Maybe you are reading a different battletome than the one I do.

Duncan Rhodes himself said he was building his KO for melee.... I don’t know if he’s actually as good at playing as he is at painting but it’s just something to consider. 

[Undeadly]

Just to throw my two cents in, I honestly don't think that is entirely wise to use the Realms of Battle or Malign Realm Sorcery  Ruleset in a "competitive" sort of setting. Although I do admit I like the idea that GW is trying to push, which is that these rules help diversify and round army lists. That is a good intention to have, because it helps deal with things like monobuilds, or very specific army lists, and helps make tournaments more interesting in general. Infact, I do think these rules make battles far more interesting, at least in a friendly, mildly competitive match.

But the main problems with the Realms of Battle rules isn't that they force players to change their lists; Its that it can actively benefit one army far, far more than another, or possibly even ruin a players army entirely. These rules can have such drastic effects that go far beyond being simply tactical challenges, to the point where some armies basically break down. Now, since the RoB are all random to a certain degree, I think its fair to say that the possibility of something occurring that helps you, or hinders you are both equally likely.  But the problem isn't luck, or possibility of getting these bonuses: Its the fact that these bonuses can actively cripple, or massively help particular armies, with nothing more than a roll of a single dice, and this can quickly lead to frustration and anger on both sides of the table over relatively nothing.

I mean, we all know about Aqshy's Flaming Missiles; This is by far one of the biggest overwhelming advantages, simply because of what shooting is like in AoS. Order armies, like Freeguild, Wanderers, Dispossessed, and Stormcast instantly get a great bonus that can make certain units incredibly deadly. Thunderers, Iron drakes, Sisters of the Watch, Glade Guard all instantly become better. But on the flipside, all of those units and armies can get instantly worse if you roll one higher, and get Clouds of Smoke and Steam, which makes it so that you cannot draw LoS through any sort of terrain, effectively stifling the range of their weapons, but with no benefit in return. I will admit that the Set Alight Command Ability you get in Aqshy helps mitigate Flaming Missiles, but does nothing to help Long Ranged armies in return. How is that fun for a player using a shooty army? 

On the other side of the coin, if you roll a 4 in Aqshy as a Nighthaunt player, suddenly one of your biggest advantages, Tides of Death, which allows you to have a unit attack instantly if you roll a 9+ to charge, becomes incredibly weak. Due to Every Step a League, any unit that rolls a 10+ to charge or advances 6+, gets d3 mortal wounds. And in a army with mostly low wound count models, this can be honestly devastating. Now, you can decide not to move, but that actively makes it harder for your units to get into combat, and degrades their best Allegiance Ability.  Not to mention Burning Skies (Not the  Chaos Dwarf one) ALSO makes Nighthaunt much harder to play, since every Nighthaunt unit is flying, and alot of them have a base 8" to move. If we try to use our full move value, there is chance that a Nighthaunt player will just combust.  Either one of these would actively be awful for a Nighthaunt player, and certainly hurt his ability to win.

And these are just from ONE realm. Each one has abilities that will just devastate certain armies. Brittle Isles from Chamon makes rend utterly useless. Winds of Death in Shyish can effectively destroy hordes if it can go off. Ghur has the obvious problem of possibly having up to 4 monsters just roaming about, or giving Close Combat armies another go in the combat phase. Feccund Quagmires can cripple slower armies by robbing them of their ability to run. All of these are just innate, random penalties to certain armies, with no way you can really change or counter it.

But even worse, is that a good majority of these abilities are all usually activated on a  6+ to begin with. This makes it nearly impossible to tell how often they will come into play, and how  much they will affect the battle at large, making strategies that counter or use them utterly pointless.

Now that I think I've illustrated my points, I will say this:  I think when used in the right combinations, or if multiple rules were put into effect at the same time, I think you could have some interesting battles, and help spice up game play. In Aqshy, say you used both the Steam and Smoke rule AND the Flaming Missiles Rule. Suddenly, players would have to make far more tactical movements, and play a game of cat mouse through the terrain. Shooting is far stronger now, but also limited in how far you can use it. This would make a battle using those rules far more challenging, but also fair, as the shooting player lines up avenues of fire, while the close combat army tries to maneuver through the LoS blocking terrain. This is just one example, but overall,  I think a really fun and neat one that makes players think more about what they do. And that is what  I think that GW is trying to say about the rules, and what they hope they function as. But at this state in time, the only thing they do is just make people angry and frustrated. 

[ianob]

37 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Clearly I didn’t realize this as I’ve never been to an event. 

Here I was thinking it was all pros that would crush my soul if I didn’t get a lot of practice and preparation in..

edit: and you may be wondering why I thought events were tightly oiled machines of hyper competitive players only playing at the highest caliber with the best possible lists and players. And if you’re wondering that it’s like you haven’t read anything online ever (Reddit, WarhammerCompetitive, literally here, Dakka Dakka, etc) 

I don’t see too many super new people who barely have a grasp on the rules posting their sick tournament lists. Blood of Kittens and other such tournament list compilation sites only seem to post from those huge “pro” events or whatever as well. 

Based on what’s reported and the way people talk about tournaments it’s pretty easy to come away with the impression they’re for hard core players only and scarred veterans that have been playing for several years. 

I'm glad you expanded this because I wasn't sure from your initial comment if you were kidding or not.

It's a shame you've gotten this impression. Tournaments are awesome, and if you want to play competitively are actually a great way to practice and learn. Nothing teaches you like a good solid loss!

I hope that if you have the facility to get to events, you try some. They're great fun.