Jump to content

Tournament Realm Rules


Recommended Posts

Hi all!

There were a few people who I think were of similar thinking to me in terms of getting the realm rules used at tournaments in such a way that it encourages diversity in list building. I've had a good peruse through them, and thought I'd create a thread specifically discussing what rules could be used in what combinations (spells included) to create a diverse set of battlefields to fight upon.

In order to stimulate some discussion, I've come up with a mini tournament pack up for the realm rules that I think work well to force people to have a think about what they bring to a Matched Play bonanza. I personally think rolling for each game would be fairly difficult to keep track of, and equally I think that having it set completely in stone which realm you'll be fighting in at which point in the tournament also sort of defeats the object of having them at all. Instead, I've tried to find a happy medium.

This thread is not designed to be an argument about whether or not they should be used. In this hypothetical scenario, they are going to be used, but I think it'd be cool to work out the best and most fun combinations possible.

EXAMPLE TOURNAMENT RULES PACK

Realms of Battle rules will be in effect. Players will play 6 games, and will play in 6 out of 7 realms listed below. Players will not know which tables and in what order they will be playing until the day, so it is highly advised that army lists are created to be effective in as many different realms as possible.

REALM OF BATTLE: SHYISH
All realm spells are in use for this realm. Realmscape Feature is Haunted Realm (All Terrain is Sinister in addition to any other terrain effects).

The idea behind this is to hamper Bravery when near any terrain, in addition to their normal features. It will affect some armies more than others, obviously.

REALM OF BATTLE: AQSHY
All realm spells are in use for this realm. Realmscape Feature is Flaming Missiles (Additional -1 Rend to shooting over 12").

In this realm, ranged units will be getting a boost. The table, however, will have a higher terrain density, allowing use of Realm Command Ability to set terrain ablaze and make it LoS blocking. It'll likely become a game of manoeuvre.

REALM OF BATTLE: CHAMON
All realm spells are in use for this realm. Realmscape Feature is Rust Plague (In your hero phase, roll a dice. On a 6+, pick an enemy unit and subtract 1 from save rolls made for it for the rest of the battle).

A fairly 'vanilla' match up, with the added perk of being able to degrade particularly tough units if you roll well enough.

REALM OF BATTLE: GHUR
All realm spells are in use for this realm. There will be no Monsters added to the battlefield. Realmscape Feature is Primal Violence (At the end of the combat phase, roll a dice - on a 6+, carry out the combat phase again).

No monsters, as it's a pain in the rear. Arguably detracts from the flavour of the realm, but the chance of double combat phases should make the game particularly brutal for melee armies.

REALM OF BATTLE: GHYRAN
All realm spells are in use for this realm. Realmscape Feature is Fecund Quagmire (Models cannot run unless they can fly) AND Seeds of Hope (unmodified battleshock rolls of 1 mean no models will flee, and all wounds allocated to the unit are healed).

This realm should be a bit of a war of attrition. The lack of mobility will be taxing for slower armies, but the potential to heal up wounds soaked should be helpful. Armies will need to take some flying units, or at the very least an element of cavalry, to ensure they can make it to last minute objectives.

REALM OF BATTLE: HYSH
All realm spells are in use for this realm, however BANISHMENT may only be successfully cast once per army for the duration of the game. Realmscape Feature is Speed of Light (At the start of your movement phase, roll a dice - on a 6+, pick a unit and set it up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from enemy units).

The potential to teleport units around the battlefield should make things interesting. Banishment has been reduced to a single cast per game per army, meaning you can use it at the crucial moment, but it won't just be spammed all game. Use it wisely.

REALM OF BATTLE: ULGU
All realm spells are in use for this realm. Realmscape Feature is Perpetual Dusk (Range of attacks and spells reduced to 12").

This is a deliberate hampering of shooting and magic. The command ability allowing the redeployment of units will be crucial to getting the right guns or magic into range.

Anyone got any interesting combinations they can think of?

Another limitation I thought perhaps might work was that any army that has their own Spell Lores or tables in the Battletome should be forced to make a choice each game between using the spells for that realm or the spells from their Battletome. I didn't know if this was perhaps a little restrictive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you think it would increase the fun/attendance from your local crowd, sure. You should just be aware that GW claims that things have been balanced with all the 'optional' rules included, and that changing things up like this will upset this alleged balance. For example, based on your list, those who have or can afford to get strong 12" range shooters/casters would be advantaged. Not knowing the degree of potential range reduction would make it more challenging to select optimal units/increase variety.

Personally, I would still attend, but given a choice would prefer just using GW guidelines. The advantage of this is that attendees would have no grounds to feel disadvantaged by the event specific rules, and there isn't enough data to support an immediate need to 'fix' things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:26 AM, EldritchX said:

If you think it would increase the fun/attendance from your local crowd, sure. You should just be aware that GW claims that things have been balanced with all the 'optional' rules included, and that changing things up like this will upset this alleged balance. For example, based on your list, those who have or can afford to get strong 12" range shooters/casters would be advantaged. Not knowing the degree of potential range reduction would make it more challenging to select optimal units/increase variety.

Personally, I would still attend, but given a choice would prefer just using GW guidelines. The advantage of this is that attendees would have no grounds to feel disadvantaged by the event specific rules, and there isn't enough data to support an immediate need to 'fix' things.

GW can claim anything they want to claim, that doesn't make it true. The random realm rules aren't balanced THEMSELVES, the idea that armies would actually be balanced around them is hilarious, totally laughable, bullsh*t.

For example, in the scenario you presented the 2 armies that have good low range shooting would have an advantage, sure. But in a RANDOM ulgu game, you likely wouldn't take any shooting units AT ALL because they would become totally useless if you got the 6" range roll. And if you did try to take those units, and did roll 6" range, you'd be MEGA fracked.

In my personal opinion, realm rules are always unfit for tournament play. But if you're going to shove them down players throats then they MUST be prechosen and have pre-chosen realmscape features. Turning up with a Slaanesh daemons list and rolling "your army can't run, get fracked nerd" would be game endingly infuriating. Now that I'm reading through the OP's post, and see that he actually included Fecund Quagmire(one of the worst rules GW has EVER written) I can expand more on why it's terrible. See, the OP seems to think Fecund Quagmire will make it a war of attrition, but that's not what it does.

What Fecund Quagmire does is 2 things: 1. It tells Daughters of Khaine and Slaanesh players that they can stay home that day. Most of those armies point costs are tied up in their run move and losing that ability negatively impacts them FAR more than other armies. I wouldn't take a DoK list to a tournament that had a 1 in 6 of fecund quagmire, let alone a guaranteed one. 2. Fecund Quagmire also makes the game unbearably slow and boring to play. You're looking at bottom of 2 top of 3 before ANYTHING happens unless the armies have teleports or long range shooting.  You wouldn't even need to heal models because nothing's going to be able to fight. If you do have teleports or long range shooting you're also at a MASSIVE advantage over armies that don't. Could you even imagine 2 deathrattle armies fighting in fecund quagmire? That's a 24" deadzone in the middle. To get 2 units of skeletons within 7" charge range of each other who started ON the deployment line would take 4 player turns.

Again though, the realm rules don't work for tournament play and shouldn't be included at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is feedback on the actual realmscape features suggested:

1. This one is fine because only 1 out of every 3 tables is even going to remember to use it. You are ****** over destruction pretty hard when they remember though.

2. This one either won't really matter, (with the ulgu one later down the line) or will totally destroy people in concert with Fecund Quagmire. Also only about half the tables will remember to use it.

3. This will ONE HUNDRED PERCENT result in someone getting very (deservedly) angry. That 1 die roll will ABSOLUTELY end at least a handful of games on the spot. If it happens during a double turn, I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see some table flipping.  Only about 1/3rd of the table will remember to use it every turn though.

4. This is 100% terrible. If I was reading this packet and I saw Fecund Quagmire in it, that would be an INSTANT pass. It's easily the dumbest of the realmscape features and is, of all of them, by FAR the most unfit for tournament play. It makes games way slower while heavily favoring shooting/TP armies. Don't use fecund quagmire.

5. This one isn't a huge deal because most people are going to forget about it, it is another one of those 'roll a 6 win the game' abilities though.

6. This one won't matter. The teleport is unlikely to be used on long range shooting units. It's suicide for something like Longstrikes or longgunners to get that close. If it happens it's because they have the DPS to wipe out every unit in counter charge range, at which point it's the same result as them having their full range, just with extra steps. If it wasn't for how massively games 2 and 4 favor shooting armies you likely just wouldn't see any long range shooting.

 

If I was building a list for this event, I would take a maxed out mixed order gunline with screens. Game 1 I would just avoid terrain. game 2 would be an almost guaranteed win, LoS terrain or not, game 3 won't really affect me because most of the army should be dead before 'roll a 6 to win' happens, game 4 would be a super boring autowin unless against Nighthaunt or Stormcast, game 5 would just be a normal game, game 6 would be a loss but that seems like a fair trade for a guaranteed major victory, an almost guaranteed major victory, and being able to just outright avoid the other 3 realmscape features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Ghur, we've been toying with a variant that we feel balances things with regards to monsters and whether you drop one or not.

At the start of each battle round, a player rolls a D3 for each monster on the table

1 - The monster does nothing

2 - That player controls the monster

3 - The opposing player controls the monster.

 

I also feel that monsters need to be points limited (allied points values would work I think) so that people aren't dropping 500+ point monsters in 1000 point games for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just reference the above replies to show how some of the realm rules can elicit violent responses from some players (which might be just a minority). Many of them are overreactions that don't really make sense, for example if 6" shooting and no run are both in the mix, does it mean that you 'can't' bring anything at all? :P

I personally feel that no TO is currently is a position to determine which rules in particular are balanced or not, so it just comes down to what you want your event to be like. Everything is balanced in a way since the rules apply uniformly to all players regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, froo said:

For Ghur, we've been toying with a variant that we feel balances things with regards to monsters and whether you drop one or not.

At the start of each battle round, a player rolls a D3 for each monster on the table

1 - The monster does nothing

2 - That player controls the monster

3 - The opposing player controls the monster.

 

I also feel that monsters need to be points limited (allied points values would work I think) so that people aren't dropping 500+ point monsters in 1000 point games for example.

The way I've been thinking about is both players bring a monster.  When the first player goes to set up their monster they flip a coin.  Heads they get to set up the monster they brought, tails they get their opponent's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

 The way I've been thinking about is both players bring a monster.  When the first player goes to set up their monster they flip a coin.  Heads they get to set up the monster they brought, tails they get their opponent's.  

The problem is if one player brings a monster and the other doesn't, then what happens?

I think that the monsters need to somehow act in a way that is unpredictable so dropping one isn't as big as an issue, especially if your opponent didn't transport one to your game.

I think transporting another behemoth on the off chance that you might roll ghur can be a jarring experience, especially if its to combat some extreme edge case where someone is consistently dropping Magma Dragons. If one doesn't have full control of that monster, then I think that eliminates that jarring effect.

 

The rules I personally would like to see regarding Monstrous Beasts are more Godzilla-like in effect.

Roll a D6

1 - Monster does nothing

2 - 3 You control it

4 - 5 Other player controls it

6 - Frenzy. If there is another Monstrous Beast on the table, it can Run/Charge that Monstrous Beast and they must fight each other. If it is currently engaged in combat, it will pile in and attack a random unit it can attack. Otherwise, it does nothing except roar loudly (potentially doing some mechanic like reducing bravery in a bubble)

 

That's just me though, I want to see the Monstrous Beasts tend to attack each other though in an attempt to curtail some of the edge cases that can happen in this realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, EldritchX said:

Everything is balanced in a way since the rules apply uniformly to all players regardless.

Um, that's not how balance works. If we have a  chess tournament, I'm a TO and I say white plays without queen in tournament rules, this rule applies to all the players, however only players playing white are affected negatively. You say people overreact, but the realm rules are full of horrible design decisions(it's full of "roll a dice and horribly ****** someone" rules that allow no meaningful interaction), and the competitive players will just pick army lists that are affected by least amount of features while retaining most power(there is limited amount of top tier lists once meta settles -  look at proposed rules, pick the one list affected - if you don't own it - tough. Beautiful about this is there are many many combinations of features and you can't plan your purchases around this system - you build an army, event is announced, you check the rules - are the features random? Then some games are decided by the single roll which you can't interact with. They are not random? Then they are selected by TO and known in advance but they STILL change from event to event. You check if you can(and more importantly want to) build an army that has chance of competing. If not, you might as well not bother coming. It's a good system for people with huge selections of models and factions, but even then some of the features are just roll the dice something horrible happens to your opponent and they can't interact with it or prepare for it in any way. Good for narrative games maybe, but horrible base for competitive games.

 

 

48 minutes ago, EldritchX said:

for example if 6" shooting and no run are both in the mix, does it mean that you 'can't' bring anything at all?

No, it means you bring deepstriking alpha-strike list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crux said:

Um, that's not how balance works. If we have a  chess tournament, I'm a TO and I say white plays without queen in tournament rules, this rule applies to all the players, however only players playing white are affected negatively. You say people overreact, but the realm rules are full of horrible design decisions(it's full of "roll a dice and horribly ****** someone" rules that allow no meaningful interaction), and the competitive players will just pick army lists that are affected by least amount of features while retaining most power(there is limited amount of top tier lists once meta settles -  look at proposed rules, pick the one list affected - if you don't own it - tough. Beautiful about this is there are many many combinations of features and you can't plan your purchases around this system - you build an army, event is announced, you check the rules - are the features random? Then some games are decided by the single roll which you can't interact with. They are not random? Then they are selected by TO and known in advance but they STILL change from event to event. You check if you can(and more importantly want to) build an army that has chance of competing. If not, you might as well not bother coming. It's a good system for people with huge selections of models and factions, but even then some of the features are just roll the dice something horrible happens to your opponent and they can't interact with it or prepare for it in any way. Good for narrative games maybe, but horrible base for competitive games.

That's a false analogy, unfortunately. In chess, 50% of the players in every game HAVE to play white. Not so in AoS. Furthermore, it was specified that these rules were put in place to discourage spam, and if players start to bring fewer 'white' lists, it is achieving its stated aim. And 'if you don't own it, tough' is really part of that, for better or worse.

Your description of list building is flawed as well, because you are greatly overstating the likelihood of a '****** you' result in any given game - even over an entire tourney. It's all about risk vs reward - there absolutely could be lists strong enough in general cases that its worth bringing them even if they'll auto-lose 3% of the time, but at least there is now a degree of disincentive to spam a particularly strong/undercosted strategy. 'Horrible design decision' is an entirely subjective opinion of yours and doesn't advance your argument in any way.

As for not being able to plan for the roll of the dice... There are so many dice rolls in AoS that it's hard to take you seriously on this point. And it's outright false that you can't prepare for it, because you did go through the entire army and list selection process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated this before and will state this again.  The realmscape rules are in no way something that competitive tournaments should be using if you are trying to measure player skill and listbuilding as the objective.  They should be kept at the casual or narrative events.  All realmscape rules are is a random dice roll that greatly influences the game much more than your average dice rolls do.  

If you preselect them ahead of time, they at least remove the random dice roll aspect out of it but are still shaping what lists are going to be able to compete for the top tables and makes an irregular meta that shifts with every event.  

I had a glimmer of hope that the games were moving more toward a streaming esport model like Hasbro is going, where the game could start building toward a recognized world championship.  This seems like it would be counter to that.  Disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bellfree said:

If it happens during a double turn, I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see some table flipping.

Not literally, of course. Right? I mean, no matter what the scenario, we should always be surprised by that sort of behavior, shouldn't we?

 

As a response to the general topic, I would say two things:

1. Don't change the rules of the realms.

2. Don't publish ahead of time which realms will be used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I had a glimmer of hope that the games were moving more toward a streaming esport model like Hasbro is going, where the game could start building toward a recognized world championship.  

If realm rules keep this from happening, then I will build a shrine to the Johnsons.

This would be the worst thing to happen to GW games in the long history of hobby gaming that includes some doozies.

The ego-driven implications of the idea of a "recognized world championship" are so bro-ish, that it would make me weep for the death of our wonderful, community-based, hobby-oriented game. The last thing we should have in this community is a bunch of "Yo, bruh, ungh! I beat face on you, bruh. I'm iz da man, bruh! Champ coming through. Stand aside everyone, I take large steps! Wolverines!"

The only thing worse (that would be an inevitable outgrowth of this sort of thing) would be monetary prizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose.  But a big reason a lot of people play these games are for the global competition.  Look at xwing.  Take away the world championships from xwing and I guarantee  that a giant chunk of that playerbase disappears along with their sales numbers.  

Same with Magic.  Take away the global championships and Magic loses a massive revenue stream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between AoS and X-wing or MtG, because they have more consistent rulesets. Warhammer (be it WFB or AoS) was always made for friendly games with beer and pretzels where both players try to "forge the narrative". Trying to make that kind of game competitive is doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

If realm rules keep this from happening, then I will build a shrine to the Johnsons.

This would be the worst thing to happen to GW games in the long history of hobby gaming that includes some doozies.

The ego-driven implications of the idea of a "recognized world championship" are so bro-ish, that it would make me weep for the death of our wonderful, community-based, hobby-oriented game. The last thing we should have in this community is a bunch of "Yo, bruh, ungh! I beat face on you, bruh. I'm iz da man, bruh! Champ coming through. Stand aside everyone, I take large steps! Wolverines!"

The only thing worse (that would be an inevitable outgrowth of this sort of thing) would be monetary prizes.

I cannot upvote this enough.  The "e-sport" mindset is what is killing this hobby and ruining it.  The less "world championship" we have the better.  IMHO it's already bad enough with the ITC (which does have monetary prizes, I think it was around $5,000 for the "grand champion" for 40k and nearly every major 40k tournament has had cheating/slow-play/unsportsmanshiplike conduct go on)

On the OP, this seems to be exactly the sort of tournament pack I'd expect to see and seems to be the way GW wants it to happen.  I like it a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I suppose.  But a big reason a lot of people play these games are for the global competition.  Look at xwing.  Take away the world championships from xwing and I guarantee  that a giant chunk of that playerbase disappears along with their sales numbers.  

Same with Magic.  Take away the global championships and Magic loses a massive revenue stream.

You are, in my opinion, 100% correct. The championship element is a huge factor in the success of those two (and others like it).

I'm suggesting that AoS (and 40K) is not that kind of game and the championship mentality is a bad fit for it and its community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree @Sleboda. When some rules are written so loosely that people try to interpret them for their own benefit then that game is not good for competitive play. Even if GW would now write more precise rules (and I think they're trying), people would be still doing it. Money prizes would only make thing worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the general idea. However, in my humble opinion (and for the sake of discussion beyond the "I don't like realmscapes" whining lol), I would swap the "set-in-stone feature for each realm" for a "set-in-stone realm on each table" as it offers more posibilities. So basically, assign each table a specific realm and let the players roll for feature when starting the round (appropriate changes if required... Ghur?).

This also helps to keep certain track (as the TO, you know what realm is on each table from the start) and players will still not know beforehand what will be the effect (as table allocation is probably random at the start and then depends on performance + the roll for feature). It also gives the posibility for thematic table scenery :P (always important for rules of cool!). 

To me, it's like a reverse take on your suggestion yet offers more variety (roll for feature + unkown realm depending on table assigned), and thus, more tactical challenge. Of course, your approach is just as valid if players don't know the realm features/tables order until the start but I think it's a bit of shame to leave aside certain features by forcing a specific one per realm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, michu said:

That's the problem. Listbuilding shouldn't be the biggest factor. Why I would want to play if victory was already decided? GW games (except Shadespire) are not made to be competitive. 

Victory isn't decided, but it affects the outcome. It's like deckbuilding in Magic or Hearthstone - both competitive games with strong element of randomness. So no. listbuilding should very much be a factor - someone who ignores it and just slaps together random models shouldn't be able to win against someone who put together their army with careful consideration for synergies, given their skill is equal.

 

10 hours ago, EldritchX said:

As for not being able to plan for the roll of the dice... There are so many dice rolls in AoS that it's hard to take you seriously on this point. And it's outright false that you can't prepare for it, because you did go through the entire army and list selection process.

As for this, you misrepresent my argument. This isn't something I said. I said it's full of "roll a dice and horribly ****** someone" rules that allow no meaningful interaction. With emphasis on  interaction. Spells you can interact with  unbind rolls, terrain features by not stepping into terrain - and even these examples have their issues. But rolling a dice before the game which says: Those 320 points of Judicators you brought loose  almost all of their value and there is nothing you can do about it- with emphasis on the last part. If it's announced in advance, well you don't bring shooting, that's interaction I suppose, if it's random, well, you try not to bring shooting as well(rule says: whoever brought more shooting suffers greatest handicap this game). Why not go for lists that are least affected by these rules? Which is what's going to happen and rules will only end up lowering diversity of build types(after they chase of all competitive gamers from events). These rules will result in more spammy lists not less, only there will be less types of them.

And I'm getting distinct feeling many people in this thread are simply trying to make an argument this game isn't for competitive gamer's anyway so why bother. Well, here's why: if the game is balanced the game is more fun for casual gamers as well. I could see that back when I played 40k a lot - whenever there were lots of well attended tournaments, hobby side and narrative also flourished. It was always grumbling narrative players that ended up driving off more competitive part of the base, then what  happened was game would die(they had "pure" player base but noone to play with), they would switch game system, in their absence community would start to grow with new blood because there was noone around to say "you are having fun the wrong way", until the part of old guard who ended up splintering the community would come back. Circle of life. Truth is, competitive gamers are good for the game(look at LoL, SC2, HS or Magic - what ends up happening there is overlap between player bases).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VBS said:

I like the general idea. However, in my humble opinion (and for the sake of discussion beyond the "I don't like realmscapes" whining lol), I would swap the "set-in-stone feature for each realm" for a "set-in-stone realm on each table" as it offers more posibilities. So basically, assign each table a specific realm and let the players roll for feature when starting the round (appropriate changes if required... Ghur?).

This also helps to keep certain track (as the TO, you know what realm is on each table from the start) and players will still not know beforehand what will be the effect (as table allocation is probably random at the start and then depends on performance + the roll for feature). It also gives the posibility for thematic table scenery :P (always important for rules of cool!). 

To me, it's like a reverse take on your suggestion yet offers more variety (roll for feature + unkown realm depending on table assigned), and thus, more tactical challenge. Of course, your approach is just as valid if players don't know the realm features/tables order until the start but I think it's a bit of shame to leave aside certain features by forcing a specific one per realm. 

For me personally, I'd happily rock up and just roll for the lot! In the interest of keeping things consistent for each game, I envisioned all the tables set up for each realm, with a pre-determined realm effect. The idea being that players don't play each realm in a specific order, they find out before each match. There'd be a laminated sheet in a stand laying out the realm effect in use with reminders for rolls etc, and a list of the spells available for that realm. This means no-one will need to look at any books other than their army books.

Hopefully each different table would provide a different experience, with different pros and cons for different armies. It's the choosing which effects in which combination for each table that I find interesting! I think in the information sent out to players beforehand, it'd be case of advising them to take a diverse list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I stated this before and will state this again.  The realmscape rules are in no way something that competitive tournaments should be using if you are trying to measure player skill and listbuilding as the objective.  They should be kept at the casual or narrative events.  All realmscape rules are is a random dice roll that greatly influences the game much more than your average dice rolls do.  

If you preselect them ahead of time, they at least remove the random dice roll aspect out of it but are still shaping what lists are going to be able to compete for the top tables and makes an irregular meta that shifts with every event.  

I had a glimmer of hope that the games were moving more toward a streaming esport model like Hasbro is going, where the game could start building toward a recognized world championship.  This seems like it would be counter to that.  Disappointing.

Surely that is a massively good thing, though? In the last edition, it was simply a case of whoever had the top 3 best Battletomes won pretty much everything. There were a few other random armies appearing in the Top 10, but otherwise it was just spam. If the 'meta' shifts with every event, and an army's ability to make it to the top table changes every event, then that provides even more incentive to go - you actually have a chance with the army you've collected. You never know who's going to win.

The only people I can see being sad about this are people who have invested heavily in what they think is the best Death Star Lazerpewpew list they can, safe in the knowledge that it'll smash face until GW nerf it, and then rinse and repeat with whatever army is top of the pile next. Those with underpowered armies go to events knowing they're very unlikely to make the top tables purely because of an old Battletome. Giving everyone the opportunity seems good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...