Matched Play events. Are Dual lists good or bad for the game?

[Thain]

There is a standard set of rules: The Generals' Handbook. TO's just need to stop behaving like prima donnas and run the game as written.

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

28 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Which again is why there needs to be a standard, accepted tournament packet that modifies the rules in such a way to be better suited for tournament games, whatever that may entail.  So it becomes the normal approach, and then you can of course have your special events which deviate if necessary (e.g. more narrative tournaments or team tournaments or what have you).  AOS doesn't really have such a thing currently, just the basic Matched Play outline; I'm sure as it grows there will be a more accepted standard, I just wish it was something that would come from GW themselves and not rely on an ITC-esque independent group to do it for them.

For an event that wants a standardized format that is great. There are ITC events, NOVA events, and Adepticon events. Like playing in the Heats, you know what you get, but people should also have other side events they can play. Look at professional sports. Plenty of them have different formats. In Tennis you can play on clay or grass, in Basketball you can have a different 3 point line and 5-6 fouls, in racing there are different tracks, pit rules, passing rules, etc. In some of these(like racing) they are even part of the same championship. 

[wayniac]

8 minutes ago, Thain said:

There is a standard set of rules: The Generals' Handbook. TO's just need to stop behaving like prima donnas and run the game as written.

I would only consider that a step, not an actual tournament packet.  I'd rather have something like ITC that adds some extras to clean up the game a bit more.

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

2 minutes ago, Thain said:

There is a standard set of rules: The Generals' Handbook. TO's just need to stop behaving like prima donnas and run the game as written.

For starters, where does the Handbook talk about organized play for list creation, matching opponents(swiss v round robin), points, hobby scores, etc? Also, the FAQ states this:

Q: If my opponent and I agree, are we allowed to modify the rules to Warhammer Age of Sigmar?

A: Yes, you can. Many players tweak or change the rules found on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet, resulting in what are usually referred to as ‘house rules’. For instance, one of the most commonly seen house rules is to measure distances from base to base, ignoring limbs and weapons that hang over the edge of the model’s base. This changes the dynamic of combat slightly, and requires a certain amount of common sense to adjudicate in instances where a model does not come with a base or is mounted on a scratch-built base, but it can prevent carefully painted and modelled bases getting damaged as they are stacked on top of each other. Other house rules may modify how armies are chosen, how scenery works, or anything else the players see fit to change. You can decide amongst your own gaming group if you will use any house rules, as long as you all agree. If you’re playing in a campaign, we recommend having the same house rules apply to all the games.

[Carnelian]

56 minutes ago, Thain said:

There is a standard set of rules: The Generals' Handbook. TO's just need to stop behaving like prima donnas and run the game as written.

Have you read TGH? It explicitly allows for a number of different ways to play the game! It encourages people to modify the game and play it as they wish!

[Carnelian]

1 hour ago, Thain said:

.....The results of the tourneys tell us nothing useful about the state of the game, the quality of the lists, the balance of the factions, or the skill of the players.

I disagree. They will tell us useful info but they won't be the 'be all and end of all' of a single 'proper' way of playing the game.

That could never happen as there is no single proper way of playing the game!

[Gauche]

This is why any tournament pack or competitive provisions have to come from GW. It just isn't accepted when TO's do it the same way as when the company does it. I don't think they will ever put something like that out but it's a new age of GW so who knows? It just settles any arguments and most bad feelings when these things are handed down from the top. Again, there's probably a lot of reasons for that but it's just what I've observed over my years. 40K and Fantasy, now AoS, have always had issues with the community trying to pull itself in many different directions with regards to tournaments. It would be really nice to have some unification.

[PJetski]

I hope they never have an official standardized tournament package because it would inevitably become the only format people would want to play. It happened in 40k and it is awful

[Galas]

Yeah. The "1850 points army or go home" mentality its obnoxius. I saw people reject games with beginners that literally haven't more than 1k-1200 points! 

As a narrative player I always find incomprehensible how competitive players just accept what its the norm and hate change and derivating from it.

 

[Veterannoob]

short version: love it for a chance to use more toy soldiers in an event (multiple lists of sideboards) and more strategy game-to-game. Have some experience with this in WarmaHordes but not enough competitive-like to go deeper there. Plus, very different game. i advocate for sideboards (in fact, locally today) as nice change or mix-up, especially--to be frankly selfish-- if you run a solo faction like Fyreslayers or Ironjaws or FEC or whatever with few options.

[Thain]

The problem with TOs "adding some extras that clean up the game" is that no two TOs can agree on what that means. So we wind up with sixteen thousand different "comp" schemes, a bajillion house rules, and endless amounts of butt hurt.

Far easier for everybody to just use the Matched Play rules from TGH: as is, straight up, verbatim, no if's and's or but's. 

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

There is nothing wrong with a "vanilla" format event. Most AoS events seem to be. However, there is nothing wrong with events with "flavor." It all comes down to options for players. Some players may not like always playing the missions out of the book, or may not like the current meta and look to another format of event to try out, and some may just be bored with doing the same thing every time. More options in playing is only a good thing. No one has to go to an event that has a format they do not like.

[Gauche]

Complaining that a formalized tournament packet would ruin the game is so wrong headed to me. People who refuse to play newbies because of "1850 or bust" or take super competitive armies against people's will are ALWAYS going to do that stuff. It's just being a bad egg, it'd happen no matter what. So the only real downside is that things which are already happen...will keep happening. This happens in every game and it always sucks.

Upsides are a formalized competitive standard which won't invalidate the Narrative/Warbands methods of play. I have no data on this and I'm sure no data exists but Matched Play is very, very likely to already be the top dog anyways. People like structure and rules most of the time, I like that AoS makes room for all but Matched Play is what is going to push the game long term. Adding to that seems like a positive to me.

I have always said that big conventions/tournaments should have events or other group play for all play styles. I don't insist that Narrative players conform to my game and they shouldn't either, so we should play in our own events that cater to that style and preference. Many other games do that already and it works very smoothly.

Anecdotally I've been playing minis for many years and have never seen community rules do much to grow a game. Usually they exist because a game is dead/dying or because the owning company refuses to make their own. This works fine for your local scene but what if you want to travel? I keep hearing that this is a new GW, what if they start getting more and more involved in conventions as other companies are doing?

I'd love to have a tournament packet that I can go anywhere and know me and my opponent have common ground. I'd like sideboards because it opens up design space for the game and it opens up space for list building in competitive and casual play. But anyone who reads anything I ever have to say knows I wear my heart on my sleeve about being competitively minded first and foremost so I'm as biased as a person can be.

[Galas]

Yeah I was not talking about that a centraliced and good ruleset its bad to the game. I do a little rant  

And yes. We should have more mixed events. Events that run at the same time COmpetitive Tournaments and Narrative Mini-Tournaments/Campaings. Its a shame that big events normally do only competitive tournaments, and the most narrative aspect its reserved to local communities. 

But afterall, football move millions of € because its a competitive game. If you want to play "funny" (I don't know how to write it in other form) , don't expect the big events. 

[NoTurtlesAllowed]

Go to some big events like Adepticon, they will have tons of narrative events running side by side with the competitive events

 

[Bjarni St.]

For me the biggest potential benefit I see from SB/Dual formats is that it does give a little more leeway to units with narrow use cases that might otherwise not see play. That isn't necessarily always a good thing though; I don't think every Order list packing sideboarded War Altars and Dino Lasers in case of Daemons is really what we're looking for. Otherwise I think the onus that single-list formats put on players to have well-rounded armies is more important.

If we started seeing army lists that other "balanced" lists simply can't deal with without specialised tools then yeah, a sideboard or dual list would be appropriate but for the most part I think comp is a healthier way to deal with that.

[Kaos]

Being a warmachine player, where you do play with 2 lists standard, I approve of them. I'm not sure it's required. Warmachine has a very rock, paper, scissor approach, so dropping the wrong list can cause from mildly discomfort to a huge frustrating experience. 

Dual listing can also bring units on the table considered not exactly the top dogs, meaning you can bring units tailored to beat a specific kind of other unit or opponent. 

Considering AoS mechanisms, I do not think this is strictly necessary but could make tournaments  a bit more interesting.

[deynon]

You can summon, so why side lists and dual ludts? You can yet do it. Without needing such things.

Tactical? You hode yput shprcomings in the list so you don't have to strain your brain on game to solve it. You do work preame, it's only easier to play

I don't find the reason: you can ise unot least used a solution cause it will simply never happen. You'll not put the in the side list cause you'll try anyway to put it in a competitive way so maximize in onether way. 

With other regolamentation of the game could be interesting,but now with current rules we have yet such options, simply it requires to be used instead to finda way to do similar but lazier 

[wayniac]

20 hours ago, PJetski said:

I hope they never have an official standardized tournament package because it would inevitably become the only format people would want to play. It happened in 40k and it is awful

This is another problem though, that will always happen.  Look at when General's Handbook came out, Matched Play became the only format people would want to play too.  You can't get away from it, anything with a competitive edge (even a very dull edge like IMHO Warhammer) will drift towards competitive style games, the key is having people not ONLY do that.  Like sure, 1850 points 40k list ITC style can be a default for competitive players, but there's no reason to deny a new player a 1k point beginner type game; that's just bad players.

[Thain]

Well, if we're going to see dual list formats, maybe it would be a good idea not to let the player choose which one they use prior to the round?

Turn in your rosters to the TO as normal, but label one of them "1-3" and the other "4-6." Show up at your assigned table before the game starts, offer your opponent a look at copies of your rosters as normal... Then roll a die. Play with whichever roster the Dice Gods decide.

[Thomas Lyons]

7 hours ago, deynon said:

You can summon, so why side lists and dual ludts? You can yet do it. Without needing such things.

You clearly play Chaos or Death.  What are you proposing Destruction summon?  Incarnate elementals from the Monstrous Arcana book?  

[wayniac]

One thing I do think might help, is to enforce rolling for random command traits and artefacts, with a caveat perhaps that if it would normally cost reinforcement points it becomes free (because you don't have a choice in it; the alternate could be re-rolling it if people would screech too much about "free stuff").  That would help cut down on some blatant min-maxing, but that's more of a general thing (i only mention it because it came up in a discussion in my newly forming gaming group last night)

I absolutely do not think that "random list" is a good idea. A sideboard however I think is a good idea.

[Gauche]

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

One thing I do think might help, is to enforce rolling for random command traits and artefacts, with a caveat perhaps that if it would normally cost reinforcement points it becomes free (because you don't have a choice in it; the alternate could be re-rolling it if people would screech too much about "free stuff").  That would help cut down on some blatant min-maxing, but that's more of a general thing (i only mention it because it came up in a discussion in my newly forming gaming group last night)

I absolutely do not think that "random list" is a good idea. A sideboard however I think is a good idea.

I think this is a very bad idea, some armies rely on certain Traits and items. So now it either adds RNG to the game, which adds resentment. Even adding a way to "buy" them will just punish armies that require certain selections, many of which are NOT power lists or min-maxed.

[wayniac]

1 minute ago, Gauche said:

I think this is a very bad idea, some armies rely on certain Traits and items. So now it either adds RNG to the game, which adds resentment. Even adding a way to "buy" them will just punish armies that require certain selections, many of which are NOT power lists or min-maxed.

Such as?  Right now, armies will always pick a trait or item.  Randomizing it means you can't guarantee you'll get the one you want, and should cut down on building armies specifically to take advantage of certain traits/items that picking them enable you to always make sure you have.  Who would it affect?

[deynon]

2 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

You clearly play Chaos or Death.  What are you proposing Destruction summon?  Incarnate elementals from the Monstrous Arcana book?  

Also Seraphon and Stormcast summons... aeleves too, high and and sylvan ones particularly...

So we have only destruction that can be maybe a little without summoning...

And can anyway summon... wait... didn't side lists needed to be used to use not used units? What? You need competitive ones and not those incarnate elementals?

Or simply you  have to think better about your lists...