svnvaldez

I would not support this. A request to GW in order to make changes to the game is something I fully support. Requests to TOs to selectively alter matched play and ignore published FAQs is not something i personally am interested in at all.

Very true. As a destruction player I'm happy with it as well. Imo at beginning of next year, when most armies have an AOS2.0 book, the game will be in a great place and most armies can feel like they could win enough games to keep players of each faction happy.

Regardless of your ITC standing I promise you SCE and Seraphon are not top teir and will not be winning a 5 to 6 game GT. It is best if we all define our tiering definition since people often misunderstand each other. T1 typically indicates that the list is so oppressive that unless the other player also has a T1 list ( or a T2 list that has been drawn into a good match up and battleplan and there is a differnce in player skill) the list will win. These T1 lists are what primarily win 5 to 6 game GTs. T2 lists are solid. If you are a strong player and get placed into good match ups you could get lucky and win a GT. T3 lists are decent. You can win quite a few games. But no... you will not be winning the GT. Other lists are just better and it is unlikely your player skill/match up will carry you through. Below T3... forget it. you are going for fun. You don't have a real list. There isn't even a need to discuss where you will be placing because it won't be high. Often a list can only beat a list of equal tier or maybe one tier above. Here is a good example of MTGA tiering. https://mtgadecks.net/ With a title like "Most powerful factions after GHB2019 & FAQs" this thread is going to be a mess of opinions. Again to redirect focus: http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/generals-handbook-2019-review-mega-episode and http://facehammer.co.uk/2019/07/13/episode-75-aos-6-nations-2019-and-round-table/ (second half) give a good state of the meta. The below image is pre FAQ and GH19 but still fairly accurate for those just skimming the thread and do not want to listen to the above podcasts. Also it should be noted that each of these factions represent the best list in the book rather than the book as a whole. IDK is an eel list (not a list with 4 turtles) GS is 120+ grots (not 100% trolls) etc.

Yes! broken is a strong word... but they are pretty bent lol

Yea everyone is going to have their opinion but there is no way this teir list isn't complete biased to this players local meta/experiances. Directed at everyone - definately give legit podcasts of active tournament players a listen rather than just throwing out your own teir list. Tournament players teir lists are by no means the end all be all but they are accurate to a .5 teir or so imo. Here is the Justsaying Teir list before the FAQs and GH. Adjust up and down accordingly depending on your opinion post GH/FAQs http://facehammer.co.uk/2019/07/13/episode-75-aos-6-nations-2019-and-round-table/ Second half of this facehammer episode talks about post change meta as well

Give this a listen: Skaven, DoK, FEC, and Slaanesh are all contenders. KO, Fryeslayer, and others are on the rise. Death has been hammered http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/generals-handbook-2019-review-mega-episode

It’s completely not practical. Thus a serious TO should never pick it. Not picking it fits in the standard way to run a tournament on pg 70-71 of GH19

And they have removed some of the more problematic elements as well. By saying things like realm, realmscape, battleplan, and terrain layout are setup by the TO rather than rolled for they allow a TO to select non crazy things if that the event they want (everyone I talk who hates realms seems to forget 1 is no effect... have the TO pick that for big events. A TO would be silly to pick 8inch range or Ghur). Also there are now 2 pgs 70-71 that can be used as a standard GW AOS matched play game. We can all play a very standard yet varied game (with realms and terrain, etc) no matter where we play. I like the new layout as well.

This is a nice summary

I guess I don’t understand you. Yes you should use all GW terrain imo. You should run your tournament as GW set out on pg 70-71. If you can’t you should make as few changes as possible. One example is if you can’t afford GW terrain... then use the GW rules for custom/unique terrain.

Yes I would like to see full GW terrain. But if needed GW provides rules for custom terrain. Size restrictions and a roll on the table. What I read from point 6 is - TOs should set up the table and provide the terrain. Ideally they would use all GW terrain but there are GW rules on how to implement custom terrain if needed.  GW terrain would use rules from their scenery warscrolls. Other pieces you roll on the table.

Is it? The key take away I got was TOs should set up the table and provide the terrain. Ideally they would use all GW terrain but there are GW rules on how to implement custom terrain if needed. GW terrain would use rules from their scenery warscrolls. Other pieces you roll on the table.

Here are pics of tables at LVO and SoCal Open. Some are GW some are not... it’s not a problem in GH19. There are rules for custom/unique terrain so I would recommend all TOs follow those.

I would never recommend a TO randomly determining the realmscape for an Event. See above

I'd do the following (I'd like the TO to not pick Ghur and pick realmscape features of 1 ie no effect) 1 The tournament will use the core rules – including those pertaining to allegiance abilities, warscroll battalions and Realm of Battle rules – and the Pitched Battle rules and the rules for Hidden Agendas from the latest General’s Handbook. In addition, it will use the rules for endless spells, spells of the realms, and artefacts of the realms from Malign Sorcery. 6 Terrain for the battles will be provided and set up by the tournament organisers. All terrain features will be scenery models from the Games Workshop range, and will use the rules from their scenery warscroll (scenery warscrolls can be downloaded from the Games Workshop website). 9 Fifteen minutes before the start of each round, the tournament organisers will tell you which Pitched Battle battleplan is to be used in that round, in which realm the battles in that round are taking place, and which realmscape feature from the Realm of Battle rules for that realm will be used in that battle round.

Well look I don't want to fight about it. IN BOLD on top of pg 70 it says: They can be used as written in your own tournaments, or modified as you see fit so yes any TO can alter the game. But Realm rules are part of the Core rules of the game. Has nothing to do with Matched/Open/Narrative. I could hold a tournament and say I get 10k more points than my opponent. I personally would call that Open or Narrative but you could call it Matched play Pitched Battle with a modification if you wish.

I don't want to get too much into it but why would you think "matched play is neither defined as using GW's suggested tournament format or using the realm rules." Realm of Battle is on pg 16 of the 18 pages of core rules: After picking a battleplan to use, you can pick a Mortal Realm for the battle to take place in. If you do so, the Mortal Realm that you pick will determine which Realm of Battle rules you can use for your game. If you can’t agree on the Mortal Realm to use, roll off and the winner decides. By the core rules (Open/Narrative/ or Matched) if the two of us wanted to play a game outside of an event (without a players pack) it would be a roll off and the winner would pick the realm. Matched Play (not the same as tournament play or competitive play) is detailed on pg 52-83 of the GH19: INTRODUCING MATCHED PLAY The main differences between matched play and open play lie in army selection and battleplan design. Matched play games include rules that allow players to pick armies of equal power, and the battleplans written for matched play games are designed to provide tactically challenging games where each side has a more-or-less equal chance of winning. The emphasis of matched play gaming is on planning, tactics and military nous, so it is the perfect format for those who consider themselves accomplished strategists and savvy commanders. While narrative and open play games can vary greatly in scope and content, presenting you with all manner of scenarios to battle through, matched play games are all about you and your army, the models you select and the tactics you use. They are driven by every player’s desire for a satisfying and well-earned victory. MATCHED PLAY RULES Two types of matched play game are featured in this section – Pitched Battles and Meeting Engagements. The Pitched Battle rules are intended to provide as even a playing field as possible, ensuring that armies are equally matched, battlefield terrain is chosen and set up by both players, battleplans offer no advantage to either side, and victory conditions are clear. A Pitched Battle is the ideal place to start when playing matched play games, and these rules are the most commonly used in competitive tournaments the world over. PITCHED BATTLE TOURNAMENTS The following rules are used for the Pitched Battle tournaments that we run ourselves. They can be used as written in your own tournaments, or modified as you see fit – as long as all attendees are made aware of any changes. PITCHED BATTLE TOURNAMENT RULES The following rules apply to Warhammer Age of Sigmar Pitched Battle tournaments unless noted otherwise in the tournament rules pack: 1 The tournament will use the core rules – including those pertaining to allegiance abilities, warscroll battalions and Realm of Battle rules – and the Pitched Battle rules and the rules for Hidden Agendas from the latest General’s Handbook. In addition, it will use the rules for endless spells, spells of the realms, and artefacts of the realms from Malign Sorcery.

Yea you are right, they probably won’t. And just to be clear I think 2 points for offering to shake someone’s hand is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. we just disagree with on what the TO/Player responsibility is when defining the rule set. This is an extreme example and I understand it doesn’t get the point across... basically I would not want to enter a chess tournament and end up playing checkers

I said use pg 70-71. Bold on top of pg 70 says a TO can modify them. I’d prefer they didn’t and am happier the closer they keep it to pg 70-71. I hope GW drops the BOLD line in the future as more players accept using a standard format. Until GW does that TOs can do what they want and I have no real complaint... I would hope they see the gentle push GW is giving them with pg 70-71.

So basically unless someone wins an event using an OFFICIAL rules set that GW thinks is the correct rule set. Is how I’d say it.

I wholeheartedly disagree but I understand my view point is not shared by all.

It's either bullet point 7 or 9 or something that says the TO will pick the realm and realmscape. It is my belief that by not picking Ghur and selecting reasonable realmscapes (you can always pick the roll of 1 ie none) you are still following pg 70-71 as intended.

I also should clarify that the top of pg 70-71 in BOLD says something along the lines that a TO can make whatever alterations they want as long as all players are informed. Thus anything is technically still a matched play tournament. My preference is that no alterations are made simply so that we have a standard format.

Matched play tournaments should be ran as set out on pg 70-71 of the GH19 imo. That doesn’t mean it the best, or that I like it all, but I do think that should be the official way to play and anything else should be classified as open/narrative play rather than a matched play pitched battle tournament.

I think ME is great for as you say getting players "up to speed". Its a fine gateway format imo and never should be taken to seriously despite it being in the matched play section right along standard 2k pitched battles. I'd rather play ME in a tournament then 1k vanguard we had last year. Sometimes when a community is growing they would much rather play 1k then 2k, I live in LA (USA), there are lots of small stores in my area that only dabble in GW games and have held a 1k tournament (or doubles 1k each) tournament over the last few years. For me 2k is the "real" game, but I see no issues with having ME as an alternative for smaller sized games.