Tournaments and the GHB21/3.0 Core rules

[Kiekeboe]

Hey all, I wanted to pick your brains on something. I've been seeing some local tournament organizers say "I think the new GHB focuses way too much on Monsters so I'm going to host my tournament with the GHB21 battleplans, but take battle tactics and grand strategies from the core book instead", for example. How would you all feel about this?

Personally I'm thinking it's WAY too early to come to that conclusion. It feels to me like these people are saying "My existing army list doesn't use monsters"/"My faction doesn't have a lot of monster options"/"I hate change" and are basically trying to fight the new 3.0 changes. I would love it if tournaments just played the entire GHB21 instead of only picking and choosing which rules fit them. I feel this is just going to get massively confusing if every tournament has a different rule set. Yes the focus is on Monsters right now, and yes you have to re-write your lists, but isn't that a big part of the fun? I'm already looking forward to next years meta shake-up, I wonder what kind of theme we'll be getting then.

Is it reasonable to expect tournaments to just stick to the GHB21 package or will we be seeing a lot of tournaments move away from it to create a more generic rule set? I wonder what your takes are. 

Cheers,

[AaronWilson]

It seems a way too early to be modifying the matched play rules, way way too early. 

[Baron Klatz]

I'm definitely in agreement with you and think the new system of Matched Play being integrated with a Realmscape was a stroke of brilliance by GW. I loved Malign Portents huge Narrative variety and 2020's simpler standardization of different Realms of battle that had more differences happen but this feels like the perfect middle-ground, it's not random so armies can be built around it and it's super in-depth so the realmscape and missions have big impacts on battle as opposed to 2020's which watered it down.

Though through it all this basically happened anyway all the way back when 2016's first Ghb Time of Battle rules introduced realm spells for wizards to get more options depending on where they fought. Some tourneys made packs to play on the new stuff while others stayed vanilla.

I just say wait for the "scary change" dust to settle and enjoy all the new toys. Because even without Ghur the monsters in 3.0 got rampage buffs so those monster hunter battalion rules are super useful to counteract it.

I think it'll get easier the more Realms get released. Then there's way more options for tourneys to build around a scene's preferred battlefield & battleplans and players that have become fully accustomed to the changes. (Like back in 2016 with some big tourneys that did Halloween Death Realm packs and had zombies spawn everywhere. Lots of fun choices ahead the more variety players can build around. )

On 7/5/2021 at 1:32 AM, Kiekeboe said:

I wonder what kind of theme we'll be getting then.

My money's on the Realm of Metal. Lots of troubles brewing there in the narrative and would make a fun shift from monsters & hunters to war machines and sky battles amidst the shifting alchemical lands.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Baron Klatz

[Maddpainting]

Ignore those people they have no idea what they are talking about. Not only does literally every army have monsters, the very few that wouldn't want to take them even has ways to add in monsters anyways. You also don't need many of them, 1 is good enough for most armies. Having more monsters can make you LOSE the game b.c of the rule Predators and Prey. 

I have a friend that play Deepkin and he was complaining that the turtle wouldn't do enough for him b.c I take 4 Monsters. I should him that not a single one of my Monsters can kill a single one of his units by themselves, that he can use Predators and Prey each turn to get +4 more VP's over me and his turtle (Leviadon) can literally get him +1 extra VP a turn where mine most likely couldn't. After that he changed his mind and is now looking at it differently. 

When people don't look at all the pieces and tries to make house rules it sets up a bad habit and understanding of the game that then also influence other actions later as well, its very bad for the game.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Popisdead]

On 7/5/2021 at 1:32 AM, Kiekeboe said:

Is it reasonable to expect tournaments to just stick to the GHB21 package or will we be seeing a lot of tournaments move away from it to create a more generic rule set? I wonder what your takes are. 

comp is bad.  always has been, always will be.  

invariably it ends up hurting weaker armies in ways that are much more damaging than them just being under-powered.  Those players are going in for a couple wins and mostly 5 fun games.  Taking away the few things that will give them that chance is terrible.  I know cause I played BoC and WE all 8th ed and every comp change made it harder for me to use tools to try for a 3-2 weekend.  

People complain in tournaments.  The more the WAAC player the more the complaining.  Social media accelerates complaining even more.  FB then amps this to 11.  

The only thing that works is encouraging soft scores like painting (harshly punish grey plastic armies), and getting achievements.  A tournament where a player with a very nicely painted army that wins 4-1 should always trump over a grey army that goes 5-0.  

[Christopher Rowe]

37 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

comp is bad.  always has been, always will be.

[...]

The more the WAAC player the more the complaining...

What are "comp" and "WAAC" if you don't mind explaining?

[Maddpainting]

Comp short for competitive, WAAC is "Win at any cost" or "Win at all costs" not every comp player is WAAC, actually being at 3 GT's i have not played 1 WAAC player for those events, and i was in both Team and singles in all 3 (that is a total 22 games for major events). WAAC players are not meta list players, thats just normal meta listing, they are players that will argue, try to get things their way, slow play when they are winning, etc.. not always cheaters but they try to get the win outside of just playing a good list.

[Noserenda]

"Comp" is more probably composition in context, being the practice of house ruling army lists in tournaments usually, like giving some armies points penalties of bonuses or restricting or nerfing units.

I think ive seen one sent of comp for a tournament i actually agreed with over the years and i was probably wrong  

[stratigo]

On 7/6/2021 at 7:43 AM, Maddpainting said:

Ignore those people they have no idea what they are talking about. Not only does literally every army have monsters, the very few that wouldn't want to take them even has ways to add in monsters anyways. You also don't need many of them, 1 is good enough for most armies. Having more monsters can make you LOSE the game b.c of the rule Predators and Prey. 

I have a friend that play Deepkin and he was complaining that the turtle wouldn't do enough for him b.c I take 4 Monsters. I should him that not a single one of my Monsters can kill a single one of his units by themselves, that he can use Predators and Prey each turn to get +4 more VP's over me and his turtle (Leviadon) can literally get him +1 extra VP a turn where mine most likely couldn't. After that he changed his mind and is now looking at it differently. 

When people don't look at all the pieces and tries to make house rules it sets up a bad habit and understanding of the game that then also influence other actions later as well, its very bad for the game.

I am not sure you are using the word literally right.

 

 

 

Bad monsters are worse then no monsters, but good monsters will beat everyone with no or bad monsters unless those armies are LRL (The only army with questionable monsters AND high MW output)

[Maddpainting]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

I am not sure you are using the word literally right.

 

 

 

Bad monsters are worse then no monsters, but good monsters will beat everyone with no or bad monsters unless those armies are LRL (The only army with questionable monsters AND high MW output)

Literally every army can get a Monster someway somehow, how is that not using it correctly? Can you show me a army without one even given allies (like i said)?

To my knowledge every army has access to a Monster. 

PS: I also explained, you don't always want a monster if its bad. But for those that think they must have them at least you can take them.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Fred1245]

I hate every realm rule GW have ever written and think the new missions are a significant step back in terms of design from the 2020 GHB missions. They tried to be 40k and failed rather utterly. 

Personally, I would throw out the GHB 2021 entirely, minus point changes.

[Fred1245]

23 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

Literally every army can get a Monster someway somehow, how is that not using it correctly? Can you show me a army without one even given allies (like i said)?

To my knowledge every army has access to a Monster. 

PS: I also explained, you don't always want a monster if its bad. But for those that think they must have them at least you can take them.

What you're describing is called 'hamstringing'.

You either hamstring your army by not having a monsters or you hamstring your army by bringing a garbage monster.

Either way you end up worse off than armies that have good monsters.

[Fred1245]

4 hours ago, Popisdead said:

comp is bad.  always has been, always will be.  

invariably it ends up hurting weaker armies in ways that are much more damaging than them just being under-powered.  Those players are going in for a couple wins and mostly 5 fun games.  Taking away the few things that will give them that chance is terrible.  I know cause I played BoC and WE all 8th ed and every comp change made it harder for me to use tools to try for a 3-2 weekend.  

People complain in tournaments.  The more the WAAC player the more the complaining.  Social media accelerates complaining even more.  FB then amps this to 11.  

The only thing that works is encouraging soft scores like painting (harshly punish grey plastic armies), and getting achievements.  A tournament where a player with a very nicely painted army that wins 4-1 should always trump over a grey army that goes 5-0.  

If the tournament let a grey army play 5 games and it wins all 5 it should ALWAYS win over 4-1 if you dare call your event 'competitive'.

The error here was in letting a grey army compete at all. That's what minimum paint standards are for. A barrier to entry that ensures at least some level of respect for the event.

Tournaments that have heavily weighted hobby scores are jokes. It's almost alway just an excuse for the TOs to give free wins to their friends via subjective paint judging (Cough*Michigan GT*Cough) or a (for sportsmanship scores) tool for WAAC players to punish opponents they lose against.

[Maddpainting]

16 hours ago, Fred1245 said:

What you're describing is called 'hamstringing'.

You either hamstring your army by not having a monsters or you hamstring your army by bringing a garbage monster.

Either way you end up worse off than armies that have good monsters.

Its not always a hamstring though, just b.c it is cheap or weak doesn't mean it does not have a use, a good example is the Mindstealer Sphiranx only 10 wounds with a 5+ save but can really help you by making a unit fight last and a -2LD aura. 

There is a difference in some people want to take a Monster to have the Monster keyword for use of VPs and not for its actual abilities and having one to actually be useful for your army. OP's event he is going to the players are under the impression that you NEED a monster to win, which you DO NOT. 

If your opponent brings monsters and you don't, sure you can not get more VP's from using your lack of monster but you CAN get more VP's for killing someone else's monsters, it goes both ways.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Vaporlocke]

5 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

Its not always a hamstring though, just b.c it is cheap or weak doesn't mean it does not have a use, a good example is the Mindstealer Sphiranx only 10 wounds with a 5+ save but can really help you by making a unit fight last and a -2LD aura. 

There is a difference in take a Monster to have the Monster keyword for use of VPs and abilities and having one to actually be useful for your army.

Hey, not everyone can have access to the mighty Jabberslythe: for the low, low cost of 165 points you can buff your enemies, have a few chances to maybe toss out some MW, and gift your foe a VP when it suicide bombs. 

[Maddpainting]

12 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

Hey, not everyone can have access to the mighty Jabberslythe: for the low, low cost of 165 points you can buff your enemies, have a few chances to maybe toss out some MW, and gift your foe a VP when it suicide bombs. 

Oh shoot, I forgot about him, you're right! Not only are Beastmen suppose to lose but we need to make the opponent look good doing it! 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Skreech Verminking]

Haven’t played the new battleplans yet (nor used any of those new primary/secondary missions yet) 

So i don’t really have a say in this matter

[Skreech Verminking]

3 hours ago, Vaporlocke said:

Hey, not everyone can have access to the mighty Jabberslythe: for the low, low cost of 165 points you can buff your enemies, have a few chances to maybe toss out some MW, and gift your foe a VP when it suicide bombs. 

Are we certain that that isn’t the points that our opponent has to pay (in other words, units that the enemy player would have  to remove from his army)?

Edited July 8, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Popisdead]

19 hours ago, Fred1245 said:

If the tournament let a grey army play 5 games and it wins all 5 it should ALWAYS win over 4-1 if you dare call your event 'competitive'.

The error here was in letting a grey army compete at all. That's what minimum paint standards are for. A barrier to entry that ensures at least some level of respect for the event.

Tournaments that have heavily weighted hobby scores are jokes. It's almost alway just an excuse for the TOs to give free wins to their friends via subjective paint judging (Cough*Michigan GT*Cough) or a (for sportsmanship scores) tool for WAAC players to punish opponents they lose against.

No.  This is a hobby based game whether you like it or not.  And defining "competitive" to strictly mean your definition is limiting and detrimental to a healthy scene.  

If you don't like tournaments that allow for paint scores and sportsmanship to be part of the winner feel free to not ruin it for the other players.  

[NinthMusketeer]

While GHB21 does offer a lot to players using monsters it offers a lot for players KILLING monsters as well. The extra benefits to using monsters are offset by said monsters being a liability if not handled carefully. It is an artful dynamic that from my initial impression works well mechanically and is a great example of just how much fun GW's thematic rules writing is when they get it right.

Also, there are problems which completely overshadow those potentially caused by a monster-heavy skew anyways. Compared to double turn shooting, heroic recovery/amulet of destiny exploits, and hell even just the abysmal point cost balancing there's nothing about GHB21's matched rules that cause more than a ripple.

[Skreech Verminking]

On 7/7/2021 at 11:08 PM, Maddpainting said:

Literally every army can get a Monster someway somehow, how is that not using it correctly? Can you show me a army without one even given allies (like i said)?

To my knowledge every army has access to a Monster. 

PS: I also explained, you don't always want a monster if its bad. But for those that think they must have them at least you can take them.

Mate, what reason would you ever have ,taking a monster (in a order army as an ally), when gotrek exist.

That guy is a madman, and he went almost a hundred points down.

Gotrek da best!!

Edited July 9, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

While GHB21 does offer a lot to players using monsters it offers a lot for players KILLING monsters as well. The extra benefits to using monsters are offset by said monsters being a liability if not handled carefully. It is an artful dynamic that from my initial impression works well mechanically and is a great example of just how much fun GW's thematic rules writing is when they get it right.

Also, there are problems which completely overshadow those potentially caused by a monster-heavy skew anyways. Compared to double turn shooting, heroic recovery/amulet of destiny exploits, and hell even just the abysmal point cost balancing there's nothing about GHB21's matched rules that cause more than a ripple.

I have been distinctly less than impressed with non mortal wound shooting into 3 or even 4 plus save units. Save stacking is a strong counter to things that don't pile mortal wounds on

[Skreech Verminking]

9 minutes ago, stratigo said:

I have been distinctly less than impressed with non mortal wound shooting into 3 or even 4 plus save units. Save stacking is a strong counter to things that don't pile mortal wounds on

Yeah, thankfully though, the warpfire thrower weapon team exist.

love those new unleash hell rules, can’t wait till I’ll be able to try it out with one of those weapon teams.

 

[Schauer]

19 hours ago, Popisdead said:

No.  This is a hobby based game whether you like it or not.  And defining "competitive" to strictly mean your definition is limiting and detrimental to a healthy scene.  

If you don't like tournaments that allow for paint scores and sportsmanship to be part of the winner feel free to not ruin it for the other players.  

Paint Scores & Sportsmanship are good but if the idea is that the person you play against in a given round is determined on your performance playing the game up to that point then for the most part I would agree a 5-0 army that shows up should take the win over a 4-1 army. 

Painting skill takes a lot more time and patience to develop & perfect than learning to play the game itself. For that reason I dont think its a good idea to weigh the hobby score heavily enough to a point where a 4-1 army takes the win over a 5-0 army. Otherwise why would anyone come to these events unless they painted really well? Thats not good for building up an event in the long term.  This is all assuming everyone is making an honest effort to paint their army completely. If someone is just slapping on 3 colors and calling it a day thats a different story. 

I do think the guy gave a bad example though as iirc Michigan does a good job at creating separate awards for Battle/Painting for each facet of the hobby to be showcased on top of their overall winner

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Schauer

[The Red King]

I don't really have a problem with the GHB21 realm rules but does this mean it will be 7 years before we see the other 8 realms (and possibly one for chaos) because then I'll just assume we will never see all of them. 

Now if GHB22/23 has 3 realms each then we could conceivably get a final expansion with Azyr and realm of chaos right before 4th edition.

Alternatively the other realms could come in BR style supplements but assuming each "season" is supposed to be themed I cant really see that happening.