SwampHeart

Nah, that's GW's (very bad) suggested tournament ruleset. The idea that should be the standard is absolutely awful, oh you don't like to shake hands? You lose 2 points. Also I don't think every model in your army is shaded with highlights so you're down 15 points as well. GW tried to do a good thing but it fails miserably and I absolutely would refuse to attend a tournament that used it. Thankfully most every major TO already has a better tournament pack than that already.

Right but that's the whole thing, if it doesn't discourage the skew and you catch the bad draw you're even more screwed. Here's the thing, all the realms do is increase the odds that a gambler army wins. If you take Shootcast and never draw Ulgu but draw Ghyran then your gamble paid off. There's no tactical play here, its literally 'I hope we roll good realms and realmscapes for my army'. And its also - I hope my army has enough internal balance for me to make a balanced build. And lets not even start discussing the impact of things like Steel Rain or Winds of Death where a random die roll could just result in a unit entirely being wiped out and there is no way to counter play it, at all.

Even here I can't agree - what do you do when you draw Shootcast in Ghyran and you can't run? There is no adapting to deal with this, you just get blown off the table. What happens when you get Nagash in Shyish and he becomes Ethereal? Brittle Isle and you brought units with good rend (and paid points for that rend)? Or Brittle Isle and you play a full on Stardrake Staunch Defender build? There are too many things that come up in realms where it doesn't matter if you're a good general you just lose because of bad draw. Losing to RNG is bad. @The Jabber Tzeentch I'm speaking from a place of experience. My play group was testing full blown realm rules for at least 6 months. I'm not talking I played 5 games with Ghur, I probably played 20+ games in Ghur and never once did the monsters add anything other than a wallet measuring contest to the table.

There's not a major US event that's removed it that I'm aware of (NOVA, LVO, and ACon all use it).

The official GTs at WHW aren't real tournaments. That's a sentiment in the UK too - just look at how they're run. They're certainly not held up as a pinnacle of the tournament scene in any country. But as to the rest of the events I don't know what media you follow but everyone I know and talk to (I'm in the US) considers the UK's major events to be ahead of the US as far as skill and meta are concerned. I don't know a single major US tournament name who isn't watching BOBO, FaceHammer, SCGT, etc. as an example of what good can look like.

You just have to park in an advantageous spot where you control its proximity. Its really not a big brain play to make sure that the monster you bring either doesn't impact the game at all or is all bonus for you.

Fortunately the US got to see the end result of the UK events that used them and shied away from them.

Blackout, JustPlay, FaceHammer just to name a few.

I've played with the Ghur realm rules, repeatedly. It doesn't backfire on you, ever, assuming you read the rules and bring a monster selection that allows you ensure the positioning you need. Effectively Ghur just rewards system mastery - do you know the available monsters better than your opponent?

You say this understanding that for nearly 6 months after GW stated they were intended to be used that every major GT was using them right? It isn't like people didn't play them, there was a half year period of 'lets see how these work' and the consensus was they add very little given the massive amount of bloat they incur.

Not really - there are 3 that favor large single casters and the rest are fairly meh for most casters.

I agree 100% but what I'm digging at here is that the 'matched play core rules' aren't suitable for use as it straight out of the box. They are poorly written and must be curated to be made useful.

So effectively you're house ruling the really bad realm rules? I.E. you're no longer playing directly out of the book - the crux of this whole thing to begin with. Also to be clear in a tournament you have no choice but to play whatever stupid thing your opponent wants to bring, either that or forfeit the game. And presumably your opponent has half a brain and also understands the Ghur rule and knows how to engineer his monster to get to you (it isn't exactly rocket science).

Never had a new player at my store express any strong concern to the concept.

Or you know sometimes you play an army that literally only has a single build that works. But hey I guess if that's the case you're just a bad tactician since you picked that book and all.

No because if you play KO you don't have a viable non shooting build. So there is no 'take a balanced list and you won't get boned by Ulgu!' in that book - if you take KO and you get the 'shooting range is 8' then you're screwed because GW gave you a bad book and you played with a set of rules that further hamstrings you. Much the same as I play BoC/HoS both of which have many units which can run and charge. That ability is factored into the points cost of my models, when I get the 'you can't run' effect I'm now overpaying for those models where my opponent is entirely unaffected. When I play in the realm of Ghur and I bring a Ghorgon for my monster and my opponent brings a Magma Dragon there is no 'adapting my tactics' there is just a 300~ point difference in the game now.

Best decision I've ever made? It is 400 points but they're so effective. And it means I can equip one with a weapon to take advantage of its 9 attack profile, making one a tailor made seeker missile and the other I can use to support other units as needed. Additionally you're getting 4 re-rollable casting attempts as well as 4 re-rollable unbind attempts. Really after running 2 I just can't see not running 2 in any list I write.

No strong opinion, I've won games on it and lost them because of it as well. It adds some variety to IGOUGO (the one thing that GW desperately needs to change and has in all their specialist games). I would be really curious to see how much the double turn affects win rates.

Just some bullets on my personal tournament attendance stuff: -Won't go to a tournament using realm rules. Getting you can't run isn't a 'tactical challenge to see how good a general I am', it is literally turning off a core mechanic of the army/units I use. Also this is just another set of print outs I need to carry with me, rules bloat is real. And yes I know GW says the game is balanced with realm rules in effect. Its 100% provable its not true because GW themselves don't use Ghur at things like the GT Heats. If every single realm feature was well balanced for matched play then why is GW specifically avoiding one of them? -There isn't enough time in a tournament to have players set up terrain before each game. AoS already has a time issue, adding another 10-15 minute mini game to the process isn't helping anyone. I am 100% fine with going to a tournament that has pre-set its tables according to the GHB rules though. -Terrain Warscrolls are a huge PITA. Its not even a balance thing, its just another bit of bloat for me to have to remember on the table. AoS suffers from rules bloat as is (again see realm rules). The scenery tables work fine, I don't need to constantly reference what a Sigmarite Shrine does - I already need to be aware of what my army can do, what my opponents army can do, what realm artifacts may be in play, what army specific scenery is in play, etc. When I run events at my FLGS we use the scenery tables on tables set up per GHB guidelines, no realms, realm artifacts allowed. That's a pretty decent mirror to the rest of the US tournament scene so I think it works pretty well.

I'm usually running 5 (My usual setup has begun to revolve around a Keeper, Great Bray Shaman, 2 Epitomes, and then a revolving 5th slot). I usually find I'd rather have the points for units over the 6th character.

The furies I think will see play in lots of armies. 100 points for 12 wounds of flying skinks who are better in combat is an absolute steal.

If you talk to Joe about that list (which I've had the chance to do) he'd tell you the same thing, post GHB 2019 he isn't running Allherd. You have to remember that ETC is still using GHB 2018, and the primary reason he's running the Drove is to get access to the Slaanesh Endless spells. He's running Allherd because his specific setup doesn't make use of CP for any other significant reason so he wants to dump them into summoning where possible.

This is always going to happen. You have people who's hobby is very structured around tournaments - I'm personally in this boat. I travel as often as I can to as many tournaments as I can go to. So I want to spend as much of my time playing games that fit this format as possible. This isn't even so much as a thing where I'm practicing to take down podium spots, so much as it is making sure I can play quickly and still be a fun opponent. The counter point for me personally is I'm the sort of unofficial head of my local AoS scene. So I have to balance my personal play style with the fact that I want to grow my community. And that kind of circles to my main point, if you want ME to be a thing you may have to take the reins. I'm sure there are people out there who are organizing ME events right now, but the best way to increase the visibility is to just run events for it.

Because you're now gambling on CP regen re-rolls instead of simply banking away 4 or 5 at the start of the game to bust out a large summoning pool. At BOBO there was a clever allherd list playing at I think 1800 or 1850 that was effectively able to summon in the 9 point range on turn one (without needing a slew of good rolls). All Herd now requires you to spend a turn or 2 getting lucky to generate the Primal Call you need to change the game, and when you pair that with the abysmal traits and relics I can't see the investment making sense.

I mean this is why a good game club runs both right? The idea is that you run ME for new players/week night games but you can still build people up to 2k games. You've taken a very binary view to the 2 methods when in fact both can (and realistically should) exist in the same spaces. I far prefer 2k games but that doesn't mean I won't play ME/regular Vanguard games. The game is a growing process - most people don't dive head first into 2k games. They buy, build, and paint and play games with what they have and continue to add to it. And a lot of people like playing 2k games because they want to play with their toys - its really that simple. People want to use big models like Star Drakes and Nagash and that's not doable at 1k levels.