When Rules Get Removed From Matched Play
/
Narrative Playbook is a regular column written by Martin from Narrative Labs, taking a look at the many and varied aspects of narrative play in the many worlds of Warhammer. Check out Narrative Labs on Twitch, Twitter and Facebook for the latest streaming times, and for some fantastic interactive narrative gaming.
As narrative players one of the great things we have is the flexibility to pick from the widest set of rules available to us – previous editions of the game, out-of-use models, books that aren’t used anymore. While matched play players focus only on the current ruleset, we can go beyond this. In some ways the breadth of rules available to us can be a bit daunting.
Every so often, in the matched play environment, some rules are removed from the matched play game. A good example is the expanded artefacts from Malign Sorcery and the Realm rules form the Age of Sigmar second edition core rulebook. Both of these have been removed from matched play rules, and for people who play in those environments that’s the end of those rules. The books go onto shelves to collect dust.
As a narrative player, these rules aren’t closed to me. I can see the wider appeal of using many of the rules which over the years have been removed from matched play, and I continue to use many of them. However, a little while ago a question was posed to me about whether, as a narrative player, I should care when rules are removed from matched play. Should I just ignore the matched play ruleset and use all these old rules? Or should I align with the matched play rules completely and move on along with everyone else?
It might seem like an easy question to answer – I’m a narrative player, so of course I should continue to use all the rules that are out there. But is it that simple? These rules are removed from matched play for a variety of reasons and it’s worth having a think about some of these.
The most obvious reason for removing rules is to help balance the game for the matched play environment. One of the first games I played after the second edition of Age of Sigmar was released was a game with a vampire lord on zombie dragon, equipped with an Ethereal Amulet – an artefact from the Malign Sorcery book. It gave this fast melee beast a 3+ save that couldn’t be modified. This was one of the more common artefacts used on large monsters to make them highly durable so that they could jump straight into the battle with little concern about being killed. That vampire lord did a lot of damage and he seemed to appear quite a lot! It’s probably not surprising then, to find these artefacts removed from matched play.
As narrative players I think we should be just as concerned about these things as matched play players. I play Warhammer for fun, and for me that means that both my opponent and me have an enjoyable game. When I’m running a campaign, I have lots of players whose enjoyment is my primary concern. Rules like these, when used in the wrong circumstances, can really sour a game and I don’t believe that’s good for anyone.
Rules often change to keep things fresh, and to help make sure the 'meta' - as it’s known in competitive circles - constantly changes so that one type of play style doesn’t continue to dominate. For matched play this is clearly a good thing as, along with the release of new battletomes, it keeps players looking for new ways to play. One of the reasons I love narrative play is because of how many different ways to play it provides. From this perspective then, I’m always sad to see some of these old rules go, but its important to think about how removing a set of rules can actually create variety. The removal of a rule can change a model from being an over-powered monster that’s no fun to play to a challenging opponent you’re exciting to pit your forces against.
Often in matched play, rules changes are blanket changes designed to curb practices that the old rules allowed, as it’s very fair to say in matched play games that if you're permitted to do something then you should, in the interests of getting those wins! In narrative play we can afford to be a bit more flexible. To return to the Ethereal Amulet – on a vampire lord on zombie dragon or any other fast, powerful model, it’s probably too much. But on a vampire lord on foot using it to convince a force of Nighthaunt that he’s 'just like them' it becomes a powerful narrative tool, and still perfectly acceptable to use.
Some rules are removed because they’re not suitable for matched play anymore. I think the realmscape features are a great example of this. I recall a game I played in Aqshy where all the terrain became line of sight blocking. The all-melee army I was fielding suddenly had a huge advantage over the more ranged-attack based army I was facing up against. Through that single roll on the realmscape chart the game completely changed into one my opponent struggled to deal with. The randomness that can come from using rules like the realmscape rules makes it really hard, if not impossible, to build a matched play force that can deal with any situation it comes across. While it’s always the case that an army can have a 'bad matchup', these rules vastly increased the probability that this could happen, so I can see why they were removed and replaced with something a lot simpler.
While as a narrative perspective I’m not really worried about whether a rule is suitable for matched play or not, I am concerned about the ability of such rules to impact the narrative and the story I’m hoping to tell on the battlefield with my opponent. Just because something’s not suitable for matched play doesn’t mean it is suited to narrative play. Rolling randomly on a table when playing a game trying to defend a Slyvaneth soul-pod grove in a forest can become a bit problematic if the realmscape feature tells you the forest is burning to the ground. Surely in these circumstances the Slyvaneth would be looking to evacuate the soul-pods, rather than leave them to be burned to a crisp while battling an invading army. As a narrative player I need to think just as carefully as those who govern matched play rules as to whether a set of rules is suitable or not.
For me, this last point is the heart of the matter for me as a narrative player – I need to consider things on a case-by-case basis. While it’s great to have all these exciting tools to use in our narrative games, it also gives us a great responsibility to make sure we choose the rules we are going to use wisely. When something changes in matched play it’s easy to dismiss this as 'something for matched play', and not anything narrative players need to worry about. However, it’s always worth having a think about why these rules are no longer being used and to incorporate that thinking into our own decisions.
Perhaps not surprisingly then, my conclusion is that we definitely should care about rules that are removed from matched play games, but ultimately it depends on the circumstances of the games we are playing. We are blessed by having such a wide variety of different rules we can use, but at the same time this can be a curse – knowing when to use these rules and when to put them aside is a tricky balance. You only have to visit a matched play forum when rules change to know just how emotive these things can be!
What are your thoughts on using defunct matched play rules in your narrative games? Let me know in the comments!
