Switch Theme:

GW officially recommends using Realm of Battle rules in Organized Play  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Tampa, FL

GW posted a community article today with designers notes on suggestions for organized AOS play. They state outright that points are balanced around using the Realm of Battle rules in games. Personally, I like this, as I think the realm of battle rules add an interesting dynamic. I'm curious what the US tournaments will do since most of them seemed to be adamantly against using these rules and now GW is saying the expectation is that they are used as they are part of the balance of the game.

Here's the link to the article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/01/1st-aug-pitched-battles-in-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-2/

Some relevant quotes from the article:

We’ve provided a list of the optional rules we would recommend you use at the end of this article, but in a nutshell, we recommend you include obvious things (like the Pitched Battle rules, warscroll battalions, and rules for Allegiance Abilities), along with the Realm of Battle rules, Malign Sorcery rules, and endless spells. We’d also recommend that games can be played using any of the 18 matched play battleplans included in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Core Book and General’s Handbook 2018.

Of these, the two things that may cause an eyebrow to be raised are the inclusion of the Realm of Battle and Malign Sorcery rules, and because of this, we thought it worthwhile spending a bit of time explaining why we think it’s important to include these rules in competitive tournaments.

The reason is actually quite simple, and it’s that the Pitched Battle Profiles in our publications, and more specifically the points values in the profiles, assume those rules are being used. This means that if they are removed, certain extreme army builds become much more viable. For example, if you don’t use the Realm of Battle rules, which include a chance that visibility in a battle can be greatly reduced, then extreme ‘gunline’ armies can be taken without any risk of fighting a battle that doesn’t allow them to fight at maximum effect.


What do you all think?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 13:16:57


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think its bollocks. I'm all for any rules being used, or not-used at the local communities digression, but claiming the game is "balanced" around their presence is an affront to common-sense and good game design.

Listen, game design blends a little art, and a little science, to be sure... but how you could even conceive of claiming points are balanced around a wildly random table, of even more random and inconsistent rules, I will never know.

Hey guys! We know unit X is way too good, but think positive, he's costed correctly because you might run into the one realm where he isn't incredible!

: 5200pts (3950pts painted)

: 4400pts (3600pts painted)

: 3900pts (2200pts painted)

: 1900pts (700pts painted) 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos




Thats because they don't use math to balance the game. They use their gut. Which is subjective.

I did agree with the part that if you are using all of the rules that if you run extreme builds you will be at a disadvantage. I do like that bit because I'd like to see extreme builds shut down and I think that these random bits can do just that.

From a competitive player standpoint I can also see why that is rage-inducing.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in no
Dakka Veteran






Gotta agree, there is too mutch randomness and too little predicability in AoS now.
IMO, random aint fun, it is frustration. Any tabletop game allready have more then enugh randomness whit the dice.

Luckily, i will never do any comps.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 13:59:24


darkswordminiatures.com
Collects: 40K;Cult Mechanicus. GF9;Tanks. Flames of War. Wings of Glory. Warmachine. SW Armada. Adeptus Mechanicus. 
   
Made in es
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets




Vigo. Spain.

Randomness favours TAC armies and balanced armies on the long run... so... I see that point.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in de
Inspiring Icon Bearer






 Galas wrote:
Randomness favours TAC armies and balanced armies on the long run... so... I see that point.


Randomness also exacerbates problems with extreme armies, which can lead to even worse experiences if you get hammer in half the time it would normally take.

That said, I'm not a tournament gamer and always liked GW inserting a healthy dose of randomness in their games, especially if it was thematic and fun (such as with Orks and some Chaos stuff). I really liked how I could try to talk my opponent out of dispelling my Vortex Beast because it had buffed his Skinks in several previous games instead of doing them harm. Something like that can really enrich games. Sadly Age of Sigmar (and 8th ed 40k) lost that kind of stuff.

As for GW's recommendations, I think it's a good idea. They may not be able to balance their games as well as many would like, but actually stating their baseline for a balanced game is a good thing. You may not agree with it, and it may not technically lead to a balanced game, but it's much better to know the framework you're dealing with than having to guess.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Northridge, CA

I think it's good they cleared up how they came up with the point costs. They've taken all of these optional rules into account and tweaked points based off most likely random rolling Realms. This actually makes a lot of sense and makes me want to try out randomly rolling for the Realms in my pickup games. The missions themselves encourage you to move around the board and not be static, but additional rules that also encourage you to diversify your army by randomly rolling the Realm seem like a great idea. I hope tournament organizers take this as encouragement to use these rules (maybe slightly tweak them as well).
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Gotta agree, there is too mutch randomness and too little predicability in AoS now.
IMO, random aint fun, it is frustration. Any tabletop game allready have more then enugh randomness whit the dice.

Luckily, i will never do any comps.

Warhammer Community wrote:With games of the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar being played across the world, and events organisers planning matched play tournaments, Jervis Johnson and Ben Johnson (no relation) from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar design team join us to talk about the game’s optional rules and how they fit into organised play.

This article was really talking about how this stuff works best for organized play. This past weekend they had a fairly big event and rather than just make it so that none of the Realm rules were in effect or whatnot...they would announce at the start of each next mission pack/set the Realm that it was to be played in.

It was actually kind of interesting to hear about from some of the people who were down on those kinds of rules beforehand. Some of the more vocal opponents really liked stuff being done that way, as it laid down Realm Rules and Scenery Rules(they're supposed to be rolled for by whoever picks the Realm) with enough time beforehand for people to familiarize themselves with the rules for that Realm and the Scenery.

The "randomness" has an element of choice to it(you can roll for OR choose a Realm, for example, or just not have those rules in play so negatives and positives go away) that is on you and your opponent.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just make an official tourney pack already GW. Take the reigns and lead.

That said, if realms are somehow the breaking point in randomness for people playing Age of Sigmar tournaments, there's like.... any other game you should probably be playing in tournaments. I see realms as part of the spectacle style game that is the appeal of Sigmar compared to other systems.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I feel that if TOs organize realms/features/terrain players can't argue randomness, as the TO designed it. If when I go to adeptcion, I'm 99% sure that the TO will say "This next round will be on realm X with feature Y"
   
Made in us
Phanobi





East Bay, Ca, US

Good, games like these need flavor. Organized events should emphasize story telling and sportsmanship.

If you actually believe that Age of Sigmar is a true test of your intellect, then it probably is, just in a very disappointing way :(

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 17:59:37


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Tampa, FL

Someone on TGA brought up the point that GW has now put all the optional things on the same page: Battalions, Allegiance Abilities, Malign Sorcery, Realm of Battle, etc. So wanting to use Battalions but not Malign Sorcery, for instance, requires justification now.

It also means that they have established "pure" AOS as not using any of those things, which brings up the interesting possibility of an event that has no Battalions or Allegiance Abilities allowed (which by itself would help curb a lot of armies).

I think it's a great idea. But I fear in the states ITC will ignore it, and as a result a lot of events will just follow them.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Marmatag wrote:
Good, games like these need flavor. Organized events should emphasize story telling and sportsmanship.

If you actually believe that Age of Sigmar is a true test of your intellect, then it probably is, just in a very disappointing way :(


That's a pretty crappy thing to say to people who do enjoy playing AoS competitively.

: 5200pts (3950pts painted)

: 4400pts (3600pts painted)

: 3900pts (2200pts painted)

: 1900pts (700pts painted) 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




 Marmatag wrote:
Good, games like these need flavor. Organized events should emphasize story telling and sportsmanship.

If you actually believe that Age of Sigmar is a true test of your intellect, then it probably is, just in a very disappointing way :(


Organized NARRATIVE events should emphasize storytelling and sportsmanship. There's no place for storytelling in a competitive event, especially when the story is 'He rolled a 6 so I lose".

The rest of it just your typical brand of ridiculous nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
Someone on TGA brought up the point that GW has now put all the optional things on the same page: Battalions, Allegiance Abilities, Malign Sorcery, Realm of Battle, etc. So wanting to use Battalions but not Malign Sorcery, for instance, requires justification now.

It also means that they have established "pure" AOS as not using any of those things, which brings up the interesting possibility of an event that has no Battalions or Allegiance Abilities allowed (which by itself would help curb a lot of armies).

I think it's a great idea. But I fear in the states ITC will ignore it, and as a result a lot of events will just follow them.


Good, let them be ignored. They're trash rules designed to be one or more of: tedious, obnoxious, or game breaking. The narrative people really seem to enjoy those aspects being added to the game but they're an irritation at best or a feth you at worst for a more competitive players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnith wrote:
I feel that if TOs organize realms/features/terrain players can't argue randomness, as the TO designed it. If when I go to adeptcion, I'm 99% sure that the TO will say "This next round will be on realm X with feature Y"


That's still totally random unless it was in the packet released before the event. And if you release it in the packet for the event it just becomes another thing players build around.

No matter how you spin it the realm rules always end up being totally irrelevant or screwing someone over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 andysonic1 wrote:
I think it's good they cleared up how they came up with the point costs. They've taken all of these optional rules into account and tweaked points based off most likely random rolling Realms. This actually makes a lot of sense and makes me want to try out randomly rolling for the Realms in my pickup games. The missions themselves encourage you to move around the board and not be static, but additional rules that also encourage you to diversify your army by randomly rolling the Realm seem like a great idea. I hope tournament organizers take this as encouragement to use these rules (maybe slightly tweak them as well).


It doesn't make any sense, isn't reflected in the point costs of units, and is a stupid bs way to go about it. They're making their game worse on purpose for no reason.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 19:02:19


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran







I bet you're an absolute gem to play against.
   
Made in us
Phanobi





East Bay, Ca, US

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Good, games like these need flavor. Organized events should emphasize story telling and sportsmanship.

If you actually believe that Age of Sigmar is a true test of your intellect, then it probably is, just in a very disappointing way :(


That's a pretty crappy thing to say to people who do enjoy playing AoS competitively.


It's fine playing competitively but to think that it's a measure of who you are as a person is pretty silly. That said, with no ego on the line, why should realm of battle rules be a problem? Because they make you less likely to win? How is that different from fielding units that aren't on the bleeding edge of the power scale?

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

You are arguing in a pretty disingenuous way. Generally, if a question is genuine, you pose it and then wait for it to be answered.

I would not find the Realm of Battle rules to be fun or immersive. I find it irksome to go through the work off setting up my troops for a game only to have to remove them again because of a random occurance. I want to tell a story about a battle, not about some random magical vortex eating my battle line.

   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos




My area is still waiting on LVO and Adepticon rules before they make a final verdict on this. If LVO and Adepticon use it then I won't take flack for having it in narratives. If they ban it then using them in anything public will be a nightmare of gamer litigation to get through. I am going to be using the Aqshy rules for our Firestorm campaign (set in Aqshy) and most are fine with it for right now though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 19:30:43


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Da Boss wrote:
You are arguing in a pretty disingenuous way. Generally, if a question is genuine, you pose it and then wait for it to be answered.

I would not find the Realm of Battle rules to be fun or immersive. I find it irksome to go through the work off setting up my troops for a game only to have to remove them again because of a random occurance. I want to tell a story about a battle, not about some random magical vortex eating my battle line.


I've read the realm rules and none of them are really quite that extreme.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
You are arguing in a pretty disingenuous way. Generally, if a question is genuine, you pose it and then wait for it to be answered.

I would not find the Realm of Battle rules to be fun or immersive. I find it irksome to go through the work off setting up my troops for a game only to have to remove them again because of a random occurance. I want to tell a story about a battle, not about some random magical vortex eating my battle line.


I've read the realm rules and none of them are really quite that extreme.


The wandering monsters mess, made us change a recent tournament plan, literally mid-round-one. :-p We went into the day expecting random realms/realm special rules round-by-round, and had to abandon it when four of our tables hadn't brought enough "extra" monsters, one table had a player show up ready to power-game it by cherry-picking the free monster he brought, etc... No one was having fun, and we literally, as a group, abandoned realm-rules mid-stride. :-p

: 5200pts (3950pts painted)

: 4400pts (3600pts painted)

: 3900pts (2200pts painted)

: 1900pts (700pts painted) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
You are arguing in a pretty disingenuous way. Generally, if a question is genuine, you pose it and then wait for it to be answered.

I would not find the Realm of Battle rules to be fun or immersive. I find it irksome to go through the work off setting up my troops for a game only to have to remove them again because of a random occurance. I want to tell a story about a battle, not about some random magical vortex eating my battle line.


I've read the realm rules and none of them are really quite that extreme.


The wandering monsters mess, made us change a recent tournament plan, literally mid-round-one. :-p We went into the day expecting random realms/realm special rules round-by-round, and had to abandon it when four of our tables hadn't brought enough "extra" monsters, one table had a player show up ready to power-game it by cherry-picking the free monster he brought, etc... No one was having fun, and we literally, as a group, abandoned realm-rules mid-stride. :-p


Then your TO should have done a better job pre-planning.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
You are arguing in a pretty disingenuous way. Generally, if a question is genuine, you pose it and then wait for it to be answered.

I would not find the Realm of Battle rules to be fun or immersive. I find it irksome to go through the work off setting up my troops for a game only to have to remove them again because of a random occurance. I want to tell a story about a battle, not about some random magical vortex eating my battle line.


I've read the realm rules and none of them are really quite that extreme.


The wandering monsters mess, made us change a recent tournament plan, literally mid-round-one. :-p We went into the day expecting random realms/realm special rules round-by-round, and had to abandon it when four of our tables hadn't brought enough "extra" monsters, one table had a player show up ready to power-game it by cherry-picking the free monster he brought, etc... No one was having fun, and we literally, as a group, abandoned realm-rules mid-stride. :-p


Then your TO should have done a better job pre-planning.

And the group should have read the rules a bit more in-depth, since the "wandering monsters" aren't tied to one particular player. They go after whoever has units nearest to them, with a roll-off if both armies have units near them.

Player with units furthest away gets to control it.
   
Made in us
Revenant Pirate Crew






But you still have to Bring two extra monsters to every tournament. And you need to bring Citadel Woods.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 AduroT wrote:
But you still have to Bring two extra monsters to every tournament. And you need to bring Citadel Woods.


MAY not must. You don't have to bring it all and given that it can eat either player it may be to your benefit not to place the monster.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

 AduroT wrote:
But you still have to Bring two extra monsters to every tournament. And you need to bring Citadel Woods.

And honestly, I expect to see some more strangling of what constitutes a "monster" for this and the attacks involved, etc.

That said, you don't "have" to do crap. I had someone do this during Path to Glory--I just stayed away from the Monster and got a free Monster every turn.
   
Made in us
Revenant Pirate Crew






But the points are balanced on the chance of there being those monsters on the table!

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 AduroT wrote:
But the points are balanced on the chance of there being those monsters on the table!


On the chance, given that its a may and using GW's statements they're also balanced on the chance that you CHOOSE not to place a monster.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It seems like the easy answer is to assign a realm to each table for the event. Rather thematic too.
   
Made in us
Phanobi





East Bay, Ca, US

 LunarSol wrote:
It seems like the easy answer is to assign a realm to each table for the event. Rather thematic too.


This is the right way to do it! And a table that has Ghur should just have monsters available as part of the terrain pack. So, you don't get to cherry pick, just use what is already made available.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

 LunarSol wrote:
It seems like the easy answer is to assign a realm to each table for the event. Rather thematic too.

The way GW did it at their event recently was purportedly even easier than that:

15 minutes ahead of time for the next pairings(there were breaks between games it seems), they announced a Realm that everyone used and every terrain used a specific set as well.
   
 
Forum Index » AoS General Discussion & Background
Go to: