PDA

View Full Version : 2012 First ETC draft



Pages : [1] 2 3

Echunia
07-02-2012, 08:51
DISCLAIMER: This is not a thread for winging about comp. This is not a thread to discuss comp vs no comp. This is to discuss the first draft of the ETC comp for 2012.

If you are one of those people who just hate comp in every way, DON'T POST!

Now when we've got that over with... I'd like to discuss the first draft they've done for this years ETC. I was a big proponent of last years ETC comp, I think it was pretty good for that kind of event. It dealt with the stuff that bothers me like no dice cap on dark elves and to big deathstars.

But the new draft is just, to much. Now I know Dan Heelan, who's on the committee, said that this draft is crap because the committee has a majority of 8th-haters. This time it feels like they are really messing a bit to much with it.

The things that stood out as bad for me were:

max 5 dice on any spell. - Is 6 really so horrible? I think comp should work to make spells less powerful so 6 dice isn't as prevalent. But there should still be the option if you really need it to go off.

The Dark elves comp. - Now I don't play dark elves but I think the comp on them was extremely harsh. They're not that good... Max 20 shades is fine but this: "player may take up to 2 of following: Pendant of khaeleth\Crown of command\any number of wizards using death & shadow magic\Cauldron of Blood\Hydra." Is just crazy talk! Sure you could still build a good list with double black guard and one shadow wizard + cauldron, but how much worse does it get if he gets to have 1 hydra as well?

The Tomb King comp - We're not that bad. The TK comp is extremely lenient, sure the book is good but 200 extra points, the option for 3 sphinxes and the opponent scores half VP? As well as the ability to generate 1 more power dice than normal armies. I think it would be spot on if they removed the extra points and the VP reduction.


So has anyone else read the pack? What's your thoughts?

Once again try to keep it clean from "I hate comp". Please!

NerZuhl
07-02-2012, 09:15
A link to the Draft would be helpful.

I didn't like last years because it restricted my Elf wood elf list.........which was stupid.

xxRavenxx
07-02-2012, 09:25
It seems over the top, though I think that every year to some degree.

I always presumed that their intent was basicly to drag all armies down to the power level of wood elves, to make everyone as even as possible. This obviously means taking a sledgehammer to the top guys.

As for 5 dice on any spell? I quite like it. It stops you being able to "spell bomb" your opponent by aiming for huge odds on getting IF. Losing a dice loses a fair proportion of your likeliness to roll it, and makes you think about how many dice to actually use on each spell.

DaemonReign
07-02-2012, 09:45
I've looking over this year's draft a few days ago.
ETC probably being about 90% of the reason why I am comfortably in the frontrank of the Comp-Hating crowd I don't know why I subject myself to it, guess it's the masochist in me or something..
Ok so basically I think the general restrictions are more or less fine. I mean: I wouldn't want to play with them personally, but I'm not dissing anyone for liking them or refusing to see some of their points. A general cap on unit-size, a general cap on Power Dices used for each spells - stuff like that - it's all things I would accept with a shrugged shoulder should I ever attend such an event.
It's when the restrictions get race-specific that they nose-dive and lose every ounce of credibility.
A couple of examples:
The "restrictions" on Warmachines are not really restrictions given the pointsize.
Half of the race-specific restrictions on Daemons are meaningless (i.e results of petty jealousy rather than actual balance issues) while the other half is down right unfair. The one sane restriction on Daemons in this draft is the cap on number of allowed Flamer unit (the rest is barely suitable for sanitary needs).
The best part is that alot of these comps miss their mark. They don't make it harder to build a tough-as-nails list, they just make for less variety (think of the Graveguard Ghoul Spam of 7th Ed) while creating new imbalances.
The whole system of discounting items that generate power dice could work in theory - but then they go an pile stuff in their seemingly with no reflection of the variable strength of all these restricted items.
For example: Yeah sure paying the same penalty for a Dispel Scroll as you do for the Book of Hoeth is really balanced.
They obviously got a big hate-on for the Folding Fortess, but other items (like the Book of Hoeth, again) are allowed. (Right..?)
The restrictions on Dark Elves specifically are a bit OTT, but just as with Daemons they'll still be able to build just about one list that will 'warrant' further mismanaged 'nerfing' next year I'm sure..
Then there's a slew of armies that get "extra points" and a bunch of other silly buffs, cleary based on the whims of the personal prejudice of people just don't seem fit for the job they've set themselves out to do.
I'd readily accept armies like WE, OnG, and TK getting a handfull of extra hundred points to spend on their list. But that's about it.
Bottom line is: People clouded by bias shouldn't be on that board, and it's just too bad (in my humblest of possible opinions) that so many out of the player-base encourage them.

Now, I really hope this post falls within the guidelines of the thread. I mean.. I hope I managed to be frank and forthcoming without whining too much.
If I failed at doing so, I'd ask for any mod to just remove my post!

Morkash
07-02-2012, 10:11
For those interested, here are the rules: http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=97873

I'll try to give my PoV on the rules:

Magic:
Mostly as I expected it, COMBAT already works with 4 dice per spell and sometimes (think that are the TO's though) with 10 dice as pool maximum. So I find the ETC version rather "soft". ;)

Items:
"Any item that auto-dispels a spell counts as generating 1 DD each magic phase." - A Dispel Scroll counting as 1 DD per phase seems quite harsh...understandable for Cube of Darkness or the Seal of Destruction, but the ordinary Scroll? (Edit: With the army specific restrictions it makes more sense)
Allowing the Crown of Command is definately interesting...never played in a 8th edition tournament which allowed it. My Ogres are definately happy, though.

Army specifics:
Beastmen: 3 PD just scream Herdstone. 2600 points seem fair, the 10% VP decrease against them is a matter of opinion I guess...
Bretonnia: Nothing? Hmm...I'd expected the same point increase tbh.
Dark Elves: Have to agree with you, these restrictions are harsh. But they make sense since they prevent most harsh armies...
Dwarfs: Interesting to see no restriction on Grudge Throwers with increased strength/accuracy.

Daemons: Different approach than most restrictions. Not necessarily a bad thing, Siren Song/Master of Sorcery on Keeper/Lord of Change only definately changes their apperence on the field. 0-3 Khornies are harsh, but again necessary.

Empire: Short 'n good? Maybe a tad to soft: Light Magic spam with Popemobile supported by WM's and Steam Tanks is still possible...

High Elves: These restriction seem very carefully thought out. Book of Hoeth allowed is interesting to say the least. But in the same breath they cannot combine it with a dispel scroll or the World Dragon banner...I'm curious to see how they fare now.

Lizardmen: Seems reasonable, I'd removed the Standard of Discipline on the Slann/his unit though.

Ogre Kingdoms: Hellheart seems nice under this restriction because you have to choose between it and the Dispel Scroll. Deathfister as Dispel Dice definately influences the decision to play him as well. Good restrictions here, maybe a tad to soft as in not restricting 3x4 Mournfangs + 2 Ironblasters.

Orcs & Goblins: Oh nice, I think I'd play O&G every time now! No unit cap, heaps of bonus dice, no restrictions on chariots or Fanatics...2 x 100 NGs seem like a valid choice then! Curious to see how they fare now, the "restrictions" provide interesting ideas...

Skaven: Quite soft restrictions, we will have to see how they work out.

Tomb Kiings: Casket seems better with these restrictions as you do not lose dice. But I agree with you I do not find TK that bad either.

Wood Elves: Good rules, Wych Elm will see tournaments more often this way for sure.

Warriors of Chaos: Puppet seems reasonable, as with Hellheart and Book of Hoeth it is a nice touch that you cannot combine it with channeled DD or a dispel scroll. Tendrils as PD seems harsh, punishing people who really decide to bring a Daemon Prince is evil... :p


Lastly, the 50% VP for units under 25% strength/fleeing is necessary and good imo.

All in all those restrictions provide a interesting approach since they are different from the tournaments I played in. Allowing most items, even things like Book of Hoeth, the Great Icon of Despair and the Crown of Command is a nice change, as are the magic restrictions. Not bad.

NerZuhl
07-02-2012, 10:21
Thanks for the link.

Well since I only play Wood Elves, I will only comment there.

This still prevents me from playing my Elf Wood Elf army. I don't like treeman, treekin, or even dryads. I like the elves. Sad thing is that these restrictions force Gladeguard into MSU, and basically prevents scouts from being used at all. Only 45 of them?!? Really? I would like to know the reasoning behind this. My list currently features 3 units of GG at 15 strong full command, and 3 units of Glade Guard scouts at 10 strong each, which is 30 GG over. Is Wood Elf shooting too powerful? Frankly, keep the extra points and let me have my bows.

Again, the restrictions on my army keeps me from considering this set of comp rules.

Echunia
07-02-2012, 10:39
A link to the Draft would be helpful.

I didn't like last years because it restricted my Elf wood elf list.........which was stupid.

I purposfully didn't link the pack because I wanted people to actually know what ETC is about before posting.




...

The best part is that alot of these comps miss their mark. They don't make it harder to build a tough-as-nails list, they just make for less variety (think of the Graveguard Ghoul Spam of 7th Ed) while creating new imbalances.
The whole system of discounting items that generate power dice could work in theory - but then they go an pile stuff in their seemingly with no reflection of the variable strength of all these restricted items.
For example: Yeah sure paying the same penalty for a Dispel Scroll as you do for the Book of Hoeth is really balanced.
They obviously got a big hate-on for the Folding Fortess, but other items (like the Book of Hoeth, again) are allowed. (Right..?)

...

I'd readily accept armies like WE, OnG, and TK getting a handfull of extra hundred points to spend on their list. But that's about it.

...

Now, I really hope this post falls within the guidelines of the thread. I mean.. I hope I managed to be frank and forthcoming without whining too much.
If I failed at doing so, I'd ask for any mod to just remove my post!

Your post is fine and you bring up valid points.

I think the thing one has to consider with the ETC comp is that it's not trying to make all lists soft. The goal, at least from what I've heard, is to decrease negative play and point and click armies. There will always be a best list, it's unavoidable, but the ETC climate is very different to normal warhammer. The main issues are lists that keep points very well. Most players there don't push it all forward unless they know they won't lose anything.

I think the fortress is dissallowed because of the negative play it promotes. I also think that book of hoeth is allowed because h. elves are one of the armies that struggle immensly in the ETC. They don't keep they're points well at all and that's probably why they are allowed hoeth.

Well those are basically the armies getting extra points! As well as h. elves then, but I think that is reasonable tbh.



Bretonnia: Nothing? Hmm...I'd expected the same point increase tbh.

....

Dwarfs: Interesting to see no restriction on Grudge Throwers with increased strength/accuracy.

...

High Elves: These restriction seem very carefully thought out. Book of Hoeth allowed is interesting to say the least. But in the same breath they cannot combine it with a dispel scroll or the World Dragon banner...I'm curious to see how they fare now.

...

Orcs & Goblins: Oh nice, I think I'd play O&G every time now! No unit cap, heaps of bonus dice, no restrictions on chariots or Fanatics...2 x 100 NGs seem like a valid choice then! Curious to see how they fare now, the "restrictions" provide interesting ideas...


I think there's a couple of really good bret builds that work well under the ETC, so they don't want to give them extra bonuses. (Such as the peasants + pegasuses and 2 trebutchets build. Or the stack characters in knight busses to make them really hard to kill)

I agree that it's weird, didn't dwarfs do fairly well last ETC?

Again, I think h. elves suffer under the ETC climate so they need some extra love.

There's still a 40 models cap ;-)



Thanks for the link.

Well since I only play Wood Elves, I will only comment there.

This still prevents me from playing my Elf Wood Elf army. I don't like treeman, treekin, or even dryads. I like the elves. Sad thing is that these restrictions force Gladeguard into MSU, and basically prevents scouts from being used at all. Only 45 of them?!? Really? I would like to know the reasoning behind this. My list currently features 3 units of GG at 15 strong full command, and 3 units of Glade Guard scouts at 10 strong each, which is 30 GG over. Is Wood Elf shooting too powerful? Frankly, keep the extra points and let me have my bows.

Again, the restrictions on my army keeps me from considering this set of comp rules.

This was basically why I didn't link it. The ETC is a team tournament, not a comp for single player events. An unrestricted Wood elves list can do well in the ETC climate as it can play negatively and have very effective shooting.

Morkash
07-02-2012, 10:53
There's still a 40 models cap ;-)


But there is: "Maximum model cap is removed for this army" - That was what made me wonder! No cap at all seems weird, because it is totally out of line with the rest. Maybe not a bad thing, but somehow odd, isn't it?

MOMUS
07-02-2012, 10:59
Well i can only speak from a LM perspective.

A cap on terradons :confused: I didnt think people really rate them? I take a unit of 3 every game but mostly because i love the models (5th ed). Seems they dont really like skink armies, mine would just get through as i have two skrox hordes.

Becalming cogitation +2DD, Cupped hands +2PD??? Why have these choices become more powerful?

And in general why have so many items been given +PD/DD?

Righthandedtwin
07-02-2012, 11:05
The max on long range units...hmmm weren't Longbows over 20"? if so...ouch, that would have to sting for WE players a nerf effectively booting you in the face for daring to utilise a phase your race is designed to be dominant in.

I don't quite understand the 2600 limit on BoC...I get it on the WE being so under powered by the current editions standards but BoC are a fairly stable force I can't quite get my head around this one.

Again DoC seem to have some strange restrictions on them, 0-1 on flamers the only rare choice they get that is actually able to do anthing not to mention they're smashed down the armies range potential with the 0-1 and the 0-3 on Bloodletters seems little redundant since you can only take 3 of the same core choice anyway. Losing master of sorcery on the HoT is a real cripple to any list wanting some hero level magic support given the LoT is terrible, I can see people skipping over taking any HoT due to this...although they could slip in Vortex of Power of Spellbreaker for an extra dispel.

Why the 2500 limit on High Elves? as far as I ubnderstood 8th ed. HE weren't mauled by it like WE or Brets.

Lizardmen..hmm some of these changes again I can't understand like the 0-2 on SV's is it just me or does it seem like they are randomly comping things for no actual reason? You get zero on the Brets then you get odd changes on the Lizards and crippling changes on the DoC. I'm having a hard time seeing the ETC comitee's logic in these changes anyone shed any light on it?

NerZuhl
07-02-2012, 11:07
If you wanted to people to be informed, then provide links. If I hadn't been so lazy a quick good search pulls up this document, bypassing the parts you deem important. It is fair to want people to be informed and ask for opinions, but you should assist with it.

I don't see why the team part matters. Many TO's use this document to run their events on so it is actually quite relevant to singles tournaments, and quite often restrictions are born from this document. And from my understanding these are still 1vs1 matches. So it definitely is restricting a single player. As a matter of curiosity, has there been a WE player at ETC?

Second, I don't see the problem in promoting Wood Elf strength. The army book is generally considered the worst army in 8th edition. You say an unrestricted WE could do well, and yet they are restricted.

Honestly, I would love to see commentary behind their decisions. The only time I am really against Comp is when it doesn't allow me to play my themed army that isn't designed to be abusive or overly competitive. Many things in the document I agree with and are fine with, but at times it just loses sight of what it is doing.

laribold
07-02-2012, 12:04
An unrestricted Wood elves list can do well in the ETC climate as it can play negatively and have very effective shooting.

I'm slightly curious as to what you feel a 'negative' play style is (especially from a WE perspective)?

Aren't Wood Elves supposed to have very effective shooting? Reducing one of the main strengths of a specific army seems a bit odd to me...

Gooner
07-02-2012, 17:03
Honestly the general rules are not that bad. Some that stand out as overkill are:

O&G have no unit cap???? this seems rediculous. Maybe give them some extra, but common put some more thought into that one.

I play Dark elves and the only thing I dont agree with is only 2 of the 5 things. They already made Hydra 0-1. Thats fine, but the rest is just too much. Our shooting is nerfed by the max ranged cap. I just dont understand why I cant have a shadow mage, hydra, and couldron. Take hydra out of the list and we could start to work with it a bit.

Deamons needed to be hit bad, but the lower unit cap is a little much when you consider the rest of the nerfs. Why arnt they making Fiend of slannesh unit size 3+. I find deamons arnt that if you get ride of them throwing single fiends and small units of chaff at your combat units then, they just siren song out the units with your mage or somthing else to get them in the flank.

And Skaven did not get nerfed that hard HOW??? They are the worst army out there to play against. Maybe the general nerfs are enough but its hard to tell.

I played in a turni this weekend where it was Ard boyz style and I found none of the armies too over the top. No comp on everyone seemed to balance it out. The thing I found was the Chaff units the be the worst part of everyones armies. When you can bring many units of Chaff you can basically make it so another units never sees real combat. Both my corsairs and hydra would almost never get into combat because oppenents would just put single models in front and make me kill them then wait. reform . fight another. Its stupid that this is becoming the prefered tactic in the game. IF I DONT EVER ACTUALLY FIGHT YOU ILL PROBABLY WIN IF I BRING SOME OTHER DIRTY TRICKS EARN MORE VP THAN YOU.

Echunia
07-02-2012, 17:25
But there is: "Maximum model cap is removed for this army" - That was what made me wonder! No cap at all seems weird, because it is totally out of line with the rest. Maybe not a bad thing, but somehow odd, isn't it?

I missed that! Very weird, as well!


If you wanted to people to be informed, then provide links. If I hadn't been so lazy a quick good search pulls up this document, bypassing the parts you deem important. It is fair to want people to be informed and ask for opinions, but you should assist with it.

I don't see why the team part matters. Many TO's use this document to run their events on so it is actually quite relevant to singles tournaments, and quite often restrictions are born from this document. And from my understanding these are still 1vs1 matches. So it definitely is restricting a single player. As a matter of curiosity, has there been a WE player at ETC?

Second, I don't see the problem in promoting Wood Elf strength. The army book is generally considered the worst army in 8th edition. You say an unrestricted WE could do well, and yet they are restricted.

Honestly, I would love to see commentary behind their decisions. The only time I am really against Comp is when it doesn't allow me to play my themed army that isn't designed to be abusive or overly competitive. Many things in the document I agree with and are fine with, but at times it just loses sight of what it is doing.

Well it basically matters because the team is impacted by each individual scores. People will never just go for it in an ETC environment as it really hurts the teams overall performance if they fail. Most ETC armies are based around being able to draw effectively or reduce losses. In the pairing system you basically have blocking armies and winning armies. The real strength of an army in the ETC is to be able to not lose the team points or win without risking a loss. I.e. winning small, which shooting is really good for.


I'm slightly curious as to what you feel a 'negative' play style is (especially from a WE perspective)?

Aren't Wood Elves supposed to have very effective shooting? Reducing one of the main strengths of a specific army seems a bit odd to me...

Well Wood elves can still move and shoot. With unrestricted shooting a mass glade guard list can delete blocks, while keeping mobile.

Snake1311
07-02-2012, 18:22
For example: Yeah sure paying the same penalty for a Dispel Scroll as you do for the Book of Hoeth is really balanced.

You need to read more carefully dude. The Book is 2PD+2DD, the scroll is a single DD - i.e. book takes up 4 times the allowance.
The warmachine cap is there for armies which would spam them otherwise - Dwarfs, Empire, maybe O&G if BTs fit the list. 'Ard boyz-type lists for those contain a lot more than 5.
Those are the only two examples (i.e. with evidence) that I can see in your post.

I really like this year's ETC pack compared to last year's, from the general restrictions all the way down to the individual armies. I somewhat agree that DoC might have been overnerfed (although people say that every time and then they come out on top anyway) and that Beastmen and Woodies probably won't cut it for mass-use even with the bonuses (although WE were technically the best performing army last year), but other than that everything seems fine - its a tough choice of what to include in your team, and not just an automatic selection of 5-6 armies and then fill the last two spaces with whatever fits.
I wouldn't call the comp based on 'whims', its mostly based on the aggregate results from last year.

theunwantedbeing
07-02-2012, 18:47
No link to the pack in the opening post?
How am I meant to slate the pack as terrible if I do not know what it contains?

Fine...I'll scroll through the thread to find somebody who has linked the thing :shifty:

No surprise the dark elf list gets hit by loads of restrictions, I don't see why they can't just bump costs around to generate balance and maybe ban a handful of things (like the crown of command, pendant of khaleth, etc) rather than imposing heaps of restrictions.
Also it's badly written (yes it's a draft but it has a terrible composition which is incredibly boring to read through).

Some things are okay though, mostly the ones where they don't add any other restrictions to the army beyond the standard general ones which seem to work fine.

That said....
Why is the range cap 20"?
nothing has a range between 20" and 24" so why can they just not put 24"?
They should change the wording to be more clear on most things.
Is it 5 templates and 5 war machines, or 5 in total?
Why is the cap for units at 450pts? It's an odd value to pick.
Why say (+ wizard level) in the dice cap bit? All it does is make you wonder if they mean the limit is 5 or 9 for a level 4.

tiger g
07-02-2012, 18:55
Why is this in the warhammer section. These comps make it a different game and should be in the general fantasy discussion.

quietus1986
07-02-2012, 19:11
ETC restrictions are getting dumber every year. The mag cap on units an stuff is just plain stupid. Was thinking of ma by trying out for team Belgium but. F that with some of the dumbest restrictions ever.

Unit sizes are limited as follows:
Units cannot be more than 40 models nor 450 points (including all command, upgrades, magic items/banners). This restriction applies during the creation of the roster - unit size/cost may be increased during the game (for example - by joining characters to the unit). This restriction does not apply to characters.
juist plain ********up
Same for

Magic Restrictions:
- Apart from Winds of magic, an army may only generate 2 PD/DD per magic phase. Including channeled PD/DD.
- Player can use maximum 5 PD to cast spell (+ wizard level).
- An army may use up to 12 PD during each phase.
- You may have units/abilities that actually would generate more than 2 extra dice, but any excess dice are lost
- Some magic items/abilities count as generating dice toward this limit.
- “Count as” items/abilities may never exceed a cumulative 2 PD/DD per phase. This means that player who already spent his limit PD limit, cant take more items which “count as adding PD” or add PD from channeling during game (same for DD).
- All modifiers are applied from the army list and will not change during the game.

And I am a comp player.

Morkash
07-02-2012, 19:17
The 450 points cap is not as randomly picked as it may seem. Now I do not seat in the ETC council, but the tournaments around here (and judging from the ETC forums, generally in Germany/Austria) used either this 450 cap or one of 400 points since beginning of 8th edition.

450 means that you really have to think twice about your units. Especially expensive elite units like Chaos Warriors, Chosen, White Lions, Maneaters and Ironguts are affected by it, while cheaper units are covered by the model cap (40 in the ETC). To give a few examples: 38 Savage Big 'unz with 2 Choppaz, Musician and SB cost 438 points, which is neatly under the cap. Throw in a Black Orc (BSB) and a Savage Shaman with Shrunken Head and you have a dead serious unit. On the downside the unit is freakingly expensive and by no means indestructible. Losing it will break your neck.
Other examples are Chosen, which cannot be used bigger than 17 in the "common" configuarion with Terror and Favour of the Gods or Ironguts which have to decide between a 10th guy or playing 9 with Standard of Discipline (which you usually want for the SM). Maneaters cannot exceed 7 or 8 in size, White Lions are more difficult to horde etc.


I find that the point restriction allows MMU and MSU to shine more instead of 2 people just tossing Purple Suns and Pits o' Shades at each others Death Stars. The Savage unit I posted above is serious for sure, but I'd vastly prefer facing it instead of a Irongut/Chosen horde with characters in it.

Long story short, this cap broadens the variety of the lists you see on the field in my experience.

quietus1986
07-02-2012, 19:19
The 450 points cap is not as randomly picked as it may seem. Now I do not seat in the ETC council, but the tournaments around here (and judging from the ETC forums, generally in Germany/Austria) used either this 450 cap or one of 400 points since beginning of 8th edition.



In belgium that never happens in comps not even the ranking one's the 450 cap is the biggis nono of al the rule's.

Echunia
07-02-2012, 19:51
In belgium that never happens in comps not even the ranking one's the 450 cap is the biggis nono of al the rule's.

But why don't you like it? Like Morkash explained it basically just restricts deathstars. Is that a bad thing? They are just terribly boring to play against and keep their points way to well.

quietus1986
07-02-2012, 22:55
Can't use my main core chose in my army's its over 450 pnts ( unit of 60 crypt ghouls and my 60 night goblin unit). And oke the 40 model limit is the other thing that I don't like.
The new books don't realy have a death star but I think they make the game a bit boring with dear restrictions.

ewar
08-02-2012, 08:43
Can't use my main core chose in my army's its over 450 pnts ( unit of 60 crypt ghouls and my 60 night goblin unit). And oke the 40 model limit is the other thing that I don't like.
The new books don't realy have a death star but I think they make the game a bit boring with dear restrictions.

I think your list is exactly the point of the comp. Fighting 60 ghouls (who I would guess until recently had WS7?) would be very dull.

Rosstifer
08-02-2012, 09:02
I agree with Ewar. My default response to people putting down stupid units like 60 Ghouls would be to roll my eyes and sigh. 450pt unit cap is my 2nd favourite thing about comp.
My favourite being allowing LOS for spells like 13th and Dwellers.

Rosstifer
08-02-2012, 09:03
Edit - Stupid double post!

vcassano
08-02-2012, 11:18
I quite like basic comp - 40/450 restrictions, 12-dice maximum and LOS on the mega spells - but this is just ridiculous. I understand that they are trying to create a particular environment of play, but it is far too restrictive for my taste. Of course, it is a first draft, but for me it just seems to implement significant limitations on what a player can take. For me, comp should try to discourage boring or unenjoyable play styles and perhaps encourage the use of different units to the norm. This just narrows potential selections, in my opinion.

Also, they are too complicated. Elegance is the key to a good ruleset. Too many exceptions, caveats, gimmicks, etc. make for bad rules and increase the possibility for player error. These rules seem unfocused and inconsistent.

Ghremdal
08-02-2012, 11:50
I also like the basic restrictions, just some specific army books restrictions are strange. Why limit demon units to 28, since with the basic restrictions it is unlikely there will be more the 35. Do those 7 models really make a difference? I am not a demon player so I don't know.

TsukeFox
08-02-2012, 17:48
No chaos dwarfs-??
It is a GW book & after a decade of losing their army Chaos Dwarf players have the right to play it again. Or give them the Indy List.

They could have just outlawed the Destroyer.

Nice of ETC to give extra points to Wood Elves-

The extra points to Tomb Kings is not needed.

Righthandedtwin
08-02-2012, 17:54
No chaos dwarfs-??
It is a GW book & after a decade of losing their army Chaos Dwarf players have the right to play it again. Or give them the Indy List.

They could have just outlawed the Destroyer.

Nice of ETC to give extra points to Wood Elves-

The extra points to Tomb Kings is not needed.

Due to being only found in Throne the CD aren't considered tournemant legal by all TO's. So it's likely the ETC doesn't consider them legal.

NerZuhl
08-02-2012, 17:59
Well Wood elves can still move and shoot. With unrestricted shooting a mass glade guard list can delete blocks, while keeping mobile.

What blocks are deleted by mass str 3 shooting? Blocks of 10? My list revolves around glade guards and glade riders, and I can tell you mass str 3 shooting doesn't delete anything.

I remember now from the last ETC thread last year where I spoke out about WE being comped to hard. The goal of ETC isn't to level the playing field, but to promote an alternative form of competitive list building. Themed lists and weak army books aren't really of concern to them.

IcedCrow
08-02-2012, 18:13
I'm all for limiting death stars. The model caps are one thing I strongly agree with.

Keep on keeping on what you are doing.

BigbyWolf
08-02-2012, 18:21
Rules soom OK, for the most part...not keen on a few of the "blanket" restrictions, like SC's and the core thing. I just don't understand how limiting a theme can restrict the ETC experience, but each to their own. It's a real shame as I'd love to try my hand at ETC one day.

tmarichards
08-02-2012, 18:49
What blocks are deleted by mass str 3 shooting? Blocks of 10? My list revolves around glade guards and glade riders, and I can tell you mass str 3 shooting doesn't delete anything.

I remember now from the last ETC thread last year where I spoke out about WE being comped to hard. The goal of ETC isn't to level the playing field, but to promote an alternative form of competitive list building. Themed lists and weak army books aren't really of concern to them.

It all depends on how you define "mass". For example, I consider my 2K and 2.4K Wood Elf lists to be light on glade guard (I only have 68), whereas other people consider that to be very heavy.

Anything T3 with just a 5+ save will most definitely fall over to mass S3 shooting. For example, I know that on average dice (and assuming there's no ward save in play or intervening terrain) my list can remove a full unit of Black Guard in one turn, and the Hail of Doom Arrow just makes that a bit more comfortable. 40-50 shots is not mass shooting, 70-80 is.

Having glade riders at all in the list is never going to help, but for the most part you should be shooting at S4 for most of the game. 60-70 glade guard at short range is more than adequate to remove 15-20 White Lions or warded up Corsairs or even T4 chaps like Tomb Guard, and provided you play well enough you should be able to shoot them 2-3 times. Cases in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3krfqXZo5NE 14:20 onwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGecCs-b9uQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO-UsfOB_bA 7:20 onwards


Overall, I'm not a big fan of these particular restrictions, I think a lot of them don't make sense to me personally. For example, Wood Elves get absolutely shafted but Skaven are allowed the Power Scroll, and DE aren't allowed a hard to kill flying Stubborn chap but Warriors are...

quietus1986
08-02-2012, 18:54
I think your list is exactly the point of the comp. Fighting 60 ghouls (who I would guess until recently had WS7?) would be very dull.
No never used them like that don't really do the death star thing. I only really just started using them this big sins the new book. 450 and 40 cap oke for elite units but not for a horde army atliest t not for there core. (
Never used the WS 7 crow. I used vanhell on them for the re-roll to hit great for poison.
But if I would enter with these restrictions, I would so make my army way harder.

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 06:22
Well it's easy to see what armies the TO's play...lol

Echunia
09-02-2012, 06:47
..snip...


What he said :D.

I'd just like to add that because there's no penalty for moving and shooting you can have an effective short range of 20 inches. Making it easier to move up and hammer the closest block to death.

Ronin[XiC]
09-02-2012, 08:33
Well it's easy to see what armies the TO's play...lol

Really? Tell me please.
The TO's are a group of 6(?) people from 5 different european countries. All respected and long time veterans with hundreds(!) of combined tournament wins under their belt.

Athlan na Dyr
09-02-2012, 08:59
;6080028']Really? Tell me please.
The TO's are a group of 6(?) people from 5 different european countries. All respected and long time veterans with hundreds(!) of combined tournament wins under their belt.

Easy, not Demons:p

My personal response to the ETC draft is a mixed one. Whilst the TO's are trying to fix some problems they have perceived in the game (that are not necessarily there), I'm finding that their solutions are a bit ham-fisted. The one size fits all Special Character ban is often cited as an example for this, but there are others. The 40 model cap is one I'm finding a bit iffy.
The problem this rule is trying to address (oversized units that rely on Steadfast + Inspiring Presence to become practically unbeatable by virtue of sheer mass) can be dealt with far easier by a simple ammendment "A unit benefitting from the Steadfast rule may take a leadership test without modifiers and without the benefit of the General's Inspiring Presence unless the General is part of the unit OR take a test with modifiers and with the General's Leadership.
This solution then enables Hordes of Spearmen to still be fighting at full effectiveness after taking a few casualties. Note also that the tarpitting solution can still be employed, but requires higher quality troops (that hence cost more and can't be fielded in such numbers) or a character to accompany the unit (who can hence be targetted and killed - in other words the tactic is counterable or requires serious investment)

However, I do like the points limit. Perhaps a bit higher, but again, my opinion

trotsky
09-02-2012, 10:26
Well i can only speak from a LM perspective.

A cap on terradons :confused: I didnt think people really rate them? I take a unit of 3 every game but mostly because i love the models (5th ed). Seems they dont really like skink armies, mine would just get through as i have two skrox hordes.

Becalming cogitation +2DD, Cupped hands +2PD??? Why have these choices become more powerful?

And in general why have so many items been given +PD/DD?

Its a good idea to read the whole thing before posting... its kind of obvious when you haven't

KidDiscordia
09-02-2012, 15:23
Due to being only found in Throne the CD aren't considered tournemant legal by all TO's. So it's likely the ETC doesn't consider them legal.

So Throne is their army book which is a legal book according to GW. I don't see this as being any different from any of the other army books.

Petey
09-02-2012, 15:41
Ok guys, please forgive my ignorance, but could someone tell me what this organization is all about? What is the ETC draft? Who are these people and why is this relevant? Are they affiliated with GW? Is this an official tournament sponsored by GW? Basically, for someone who doesn't know, Why is this important?

tmarichards
09-02-2012, 15:59
The ETC is the European Team Championship, which is pretty much the Warhammer World Cup with around 30 countries taking part- I think it's just called the ETC because they don't have a better name for it, but teams from other continents also take part.

It is held once per year in the summer in Europe, the location varies from year to year but the 2012 is in Poland (2011 was in Switzerland). It is in no way affiliated to, or supported by GW. The restrictions are drawn up by a committee which includes representatives from some of the countries that take part, there are usually 2-3 drafts before the final restrictions are published. It's also completely open lists- all the team captains submit their team's lists, and they're published in the lead-up to the event along with the maps of the tables that will be used.

It's a full team tournament (8 players per team), so whilst the lists are very important the match-up process to determine who plays who is also important, so you'll end up seeing lists that wouldn't necessarily do so well in singles Warhammer- for example, there will be some lists that are there just to wall the bad match-ups, and there will be other lists that get cuddled a bit in the match-up process in order to make sure they get a good match-up where they can get a load of points.

Ronin[XiC]
09-02-2012, 16:51
And: 99% of the players are extremely hardcore long time veterans of Warhammer and usually play dozends of tournaments every year. They are not just good, they are usually the best of the best.
Those guys know how to conga-line, quick-reform you to death. They use rules you've never heard of or have probably always misread. They know what they are doing.

And they don't want to play uncomped because it's freaking boring. 6 dice uber spells of doom is not tactics, strategy, not even fun. The limit on power dice e.g. is a mean to enhance the way a player can react and not just be the victim of a flawed game system.

quietus1986
09-02-2012, 16:59
I use to play my 40K game's mostly with etc players. And know a few of the one's this year for fantasy Most of them aren't a really big fan of the over comped that they do know. They generalize every thing. But its still the first draft most of the time allot will change be for they go to the final draft. ( I play between the 10 and 15 tournaments a year mostly friendly club one's and only the last years this year is all about fantasy planing on entering every tournament for the dutch ranking that is in Flanders (1-2 a mouth) )

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 17:00
;6080765']And: 99% of the players are extremely hardcore long time veterans of Warhammer and usually play dozends of tournaments every year. They are not just good, they are usually the best of the best.
Those guys know how to conga-line, quick-reform you to death. They use rules you've never heard of or have probably always misread. They know what they are doing.

And they don't want to play uncomped because it's freaking boring. 6 dice uber spells of doom is not tactics, strategy, not even fun. The limit on power dice e.g. is a mean to enhance the way a player can react and not just be the victim of a flawed game system.

So playing with a ruleset that allows gimmiky builds makes you better? Gotcha...

Snake1311
09-02-2012, 17:44
It disallows 'gimmicks'. Quick reform is not a gimmick. Conga line is not a gimmick.

You wanna know what a gimmick is? Maxed out Slaan inside a unit of 120+ saurus warriors inside a Folding Fortress, with 2 jungle swarms (worth a combined 90 points), with some supporting heroes ferrying items of choice.

That would be my uncomped game list - I only have to paint 3 models to play it, its strategy is retardedly simple, tactics are nonexistant, and I bet it will have way more than a 50% win rate.

^ this is the kind of crap that breeds comping systems

NerZuhl
09-02-2012, 18:09
Your example is horrible. How does that army kill anything? Oh noes, 1 slaan casting spells. Wooptidoo. Avoid the fortress........go for other objectives. You can certainly do better than that example.

Opinions breed comping systems. Over zealous comp breeds anti-comp players. WAAC players breed bad tournaments. The internet ruins everything. and so on and so on

IcedCrow
09-02-2012, 18:09
It disallows 'gimmicks'. Quick reform is not a gimmick. Conga line is not a gimmick.

You wanna know what a gimmick is? Maxed out Slaan inside a unit of 120+ saurus warriors inside a Folding Fortress, with 2 jungle swarms (worth a combined 90 points), with some supporting heroes ferrying items of choice.

That would be my uncomped game list - I only have to paint 3 models to play it, its strategy is retardedly simple, tactics are nonexistant, and I bet it will have way more than a 50% win rate.

^ this is the kind of crap that breeds comping systems

I second this quote and agree with it.

Petey
09-02-2012, 18:15
Your example is horrible. How does that army kill anything? Oh noes, 1 slaan casting spells. Wooptidoo. Avoid the fortress........go for other objectives. You can certainly do better than that example.

Opinions breed comping systems. Over zealous comp breeds anti-comp players. WAAC players breed bad tournaments. The internet ruins everything. and so on and so on

I'm certainly for a more objective based game (and also ways to damage the units in buildings better than we have now). But to answer the question, that unit does damage with longranged spells and vortexes.

Avian
09-02-2012, 18:17
Woohoo! Finally allowed more than 40 gobbos per unit. :)

Quite like it myself.



Your example is horrible. How does that army kill anything? Oh noes, 1 slaan casting spells. Wooptidoo. Avoid the fortress........go for other objectives. You can certainly do better than that example.

Opinions breed comping systems. Over zealous comp breeds anti-comp players. WAAC players breed bad tournaments. The internet ruins everything. and so on and so on
You don't understand how team tournaments work. That's not an army to win anything, that is an army to prevent the other side from winning.

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 18:26
It disallows 'gimmicks'. Quick reform is not a gimmick. Conga line is not a gimmick.

You wanna know what a gimmick is? Maxed out Slaan inside a unit of 120+ saurus warriors inside a Folding Fortress, with 2 jungle swarms (worth a combined 90 points), with some supporting heroes ferrying items of choice.

That would be my uncomped game list - I only have to paint 3 models to play it, its strategy is retardedly simple, tactics are nonexistant, and I bet it will have way more than a 50% win rate.

^ this is the kind of crap that breeds comping systems

Conga lines arent a gimmick on their own, but when you comp out 6 dice and limmit the ammount of cannon on the table you swing its power in favor of being a gimmick.

Also, people need to stop with the whole OMG folding fortress is so over powered, just play something other than a battle line every time you play a battle and watch your opponent lose while holed up in his tower.

Snake1311
09-02-2012, 18:57
Your example is horrible. How does that army kill anything? Oh noes, 1 slaan casting spells. Wooptidoo. Avoid the fortress........go for other objectives. You can certainly do better than that example.

Opinions breed comping systems. Over zealous comp breeds anti-comp players. WAAC players breed bad tournaments. The internet ruins everything. and so on and so on

Loremaster Slaan with uncomped dwellers will threaten any characters that come within 24", and there are ways to pressure people at further ranges as well (like skinks with heavens for example - you'll have a bunch to defend against dwellers anyway). So yeah, you'll be getting points here and there (under uncomped a 100 pt win and a 3000pt win are the same thing), and if all else fails you'll draw.

It also works perfectly with 4 scenarios, might have a slight hiccup in dawn attack if you are very unlucky (as in, the 5.5% chance you are on opposite flanks) and may or may not lose watchtower, depending on whether you can take it turn 2 (with some GW combat heroes in the unit)

Its a good example, because its effective enough to illustrate my point, whilst being shockingly easy to play and win with. Other builds may be even worse, but might require you to, you know, touch your models during the game.


I don't understand why you are picking up on magic and warmachine restrictions in relation to conga lines. Yes, there is some interaction, but i don't think 5-6 hammerers are an optimal target for your artilery and superspells anyway are they? The proper counter to conga lines is flanking, and I suspect using congas as anything other than a temporary annoyance is extremely difficult and risky - hence they are allowed (but they WERE discussed for banning I believe, min unit width 5 as a restriction)

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 19:06
Conga lines in the flank are kinda silly, they dont add any real attacks and dont disrupt. The reason I mentioned warmachines is if you play uncomped a dwarf or empire player will have enough shots to put a cannon ball right through the conga line and the 6 dice eliminate the big amber spear from being an effective deterant. Hell, making units have to be 5 wide is also a disservice to Dwarf players that can have 4 wide ranks. In all you change one thing and you create at least one immballance.

WarmbloodedLizard
09-02-2012, 19:40
I like it and would only make minor tweaks. I've never liked 0-1 restrictions on salamanders/flamers and would rather see restriction by model, not unit. Also I think the 0-1 hydra is kind of redundant as it's already kind of limited in the "choose two" part. In general, I prefer "choose X from among a, b, c and d" much more than flat out 0-1 restrictions.

Bloodknight
09-02-2012, 21:39
So playing with a ruleset that allows gimmiky builds makes you better? Gotcha...

Frankly, the guys Ronin was talking about tend to win most tournaments they play in, or will at least always score a high spot, regardless of the comp system used. They're just that good. There's actually such as thing as mastery in a specific game.
I'm pretty damn good at Battletech, but there are always people that will make your ears flap with tricks you'd never have thought about until you saw them.

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 21:51
Frankly, the guys Ronin was talking about tend to win most tournaments they play in, or will at least always score a high spot, regardless of the comp system used. They're just that good. There's actually such as thing as mastery in a specific game.
I'm pretty damn good at Battletech, but there are always people that will make your ears flap with tricks you'd never have thought about until you saw them.

Good for them, I like playing and am on a decent win streak myself, just hard to find uncomped games of warhammer these days.
People still play battletech? I used to love that game but nobody plays here.

TsukeFox
09-02-2012, 22:24
So Throne is their army book which is a legal book according to GW. I don't see this as being any different from any of the other army books.

Agreed- Chaos Dwarfs should not be excluded.

Just outlaw the K. Destroyer

Nubl0
09-02-2012, 22:41
The kadai destroyer should not be removed if they are alowed, just rule it so that it can still always be wounded on a 6 and raise the points cost abit.

Zeroth
09-02-2012, 23:25
I'm a Daemon and the comp hits me hard. Like a ton of bricks. Yet I still like it. Anyone claiming this comp isn't balanced, or playtested, or that the ones who made it don't play the armies that the comp hit hardest - really have no idea what they are talking about. When it comes to comp, this really is it. Fantasy is NOT a balanced game - it's got a long way to go before it's as balanced as 40k.

I've tried some games with the comp and I like that it puts healthy restrictions on my army lists and force me to make lists where I need to be a better general rather than bringing cookie cutter builds.

By the way here are some numbers. Most armies brought in a team for last years ETC

Dark Elves 96,43%
Skaven 92,86%
Vampire Counts 92,86%
Daemons Of Chaos 89,29%
Lizardmen 82,14%
Empire 71,43%
Warriors Of Chaos 67,86%
Dwarfs 60,71%
Orcs & Goblins 42,86%
Bretonnians 39,29%
High Elves 32,14%
Tomb Kings 17,86%
Beastmen 7,14%
Wood Elves 3,57%
Ogre Kingdoms 3,57%

As one sees, the 5 top armies are almost auto-include for all teams. These are also the armies that got comped hardest. Blind coincidence?


And here comes stats for how many points the different armies managed to get over the course of the tournament. Listed with total, games played and average. Keep in mind the team format and remember how some armies are made to go for the kill and others are there to simply deny points. The reason Wood Elves are on top is that only 1 team brought them and he played 6 games. Won nice amount of points with it, one can argue he been put against the list he'd excel versus.

Points Games Average
81 6 13.50 Wood Elves
1851 162 11.43 Dark Elves
1565 150 10.43 Daemons Of Chaos
1622 156 10.40 Skaven
1405 138 10.18 Lizardmen
1214 120 10.12 Empire
1024 102 10.04 Dwarfs
658 66 9.97 Bretonnians
1133 114 9.94 Warriors Of Chaos
1523 156 9.76 Vampire Counts
55 6 9.17 Ogre Kingdoms
107 12 8.92 Beastmen
596 72 8.28 Orcs & Goblins
402 54 7.44 High Elves
204 30 6.80 Tomb Kings

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 23:34
How can a balanced game ever produce a win record of 263-0-0? There is no way a balanced system with randomness will allow you to win that many times in a row, I think you need to reread what balance is.

Zeroth
09-02-2012, 23:37
Sorry I forgot to update it. It's now OVER 9000 wins.

Duke Ramulots
09-02-2012, 23:42
lol, nice.

quietus1986
10-02-2012, 02:14
I'm a Daemon and the comp hits me hard. Like a ton of bricks. Yet I still like it. Anyone claiming this comp isn't balanced, or playtested, or that the ones who made it don't play the armies that the comp hit hardest - really have no idea what they are talking about. When it comes to comp, this really is it. Fantasy is NOT a balanced game - it's got a long way to go before it's as balanced as 40k.


Sorry but fantasy is just as balanced as 40K if not more so if you look at the 8ed books. I almost stopt playing 40K becose it is not balanced.
( and i have 10000pnt ultra marine army )

IcedCrow
10-02-2012, 02:54
Did someone seriously say 40k is balanced, and keep a straight face?

lmao

They are both equally NOT balanced for the same reasons.

Rosstifer
10-02-2012, 03:15
Yeah, try playing Tau or Daemons against Grey Knights and see how that goes. Neither game is balanced, nor will they ever be. Not completely.

quietus1986
10-02-2012, 04:51
The new 8ed ( meaning the armies books ) is Getting as close es it will ever be.

Koyo
10-02-2012, 05:31
For DoC:
Demonic gifts 0-1: Ok, I can see that.
Flammers 0-1: I can see that too.
Khorne 0-3: I can understand limiting letter spam.
BSB icon or gifts: they are starting to nitpick here.
No siren song on herald: Siren song is already limited to 1. All this does is makes sure that daemonettes and herald will be a rare or non-existent sight.
No MoS on HoT: Again, MoS is limited to 1. While MoS is powerful, this restriction means that the only way for a Chaos player to get access to the BRB lores is to take a LoC. A little OTT if you ask me.
28 limit on units: Ok, now it seems like they are making restrictions for restrictions sake. You can't even hit the blanket 40 man limit with any unit as it is. If you take full command and an icon, you're looking at what, 33 models.

Some of the restrictions I can understand. Some of them are dumb.

Ronin[XiC]
10-02-2012, 10:26
Not really.
Ogres is definately stronger than Tomb Kings. Not saying that TOmb Kings suck, but Ogres with e.g. their uberchariotcannons are just way better.

GW sucks at balancing and there is where the players/TO come into play.

Drongol
10-02-2012, 11:45
;6081996']Not really.
Ogres is definately stronger than Tomb Kings. Not saying that TOmb Kings suck, but Ogres with e.g. their uberchariotcannons are just way better.

GW sucks at balancing and there is where the players/TO come into play.

Actually, that kind of depends. Tomb Kings suck in a comped environment because they rely on their Special Characters to really push them over the edge. Once you can take, eg, Khalida and the SC Necrotech, you're able to compete.

The biggest problem I've seen with the Tomb Kings is that people don't seem to want to build them correctly. ;)

Ronin[XiC]
10-02-2012, 13:00
I doubt that the extremely expensive and easy to kill SC solve the problems the army has. At least not to an extend that they are on one level with Ogres.

IcedCrow
10-02-2012, 14:16
Actually, that kind of depends. Tomb Kings suck in a comped environment because they rely on their Special Characters to really push them over the edge. Once you can take, eg, Khalida and the SC Necrotech, you're able to compete.

The biggest problem I've seen with the Tomb Kings is that people don't seem to want to build them correctly. ;)

If an army only has one or two viable competitive builds, that is a problem IMO.

laribold
10-02-2012, 14:56
What he said :D.

I'd just like to add that because there's no penalty for moving and shooting you can have an effective short range of 20 inches. Making it easier to move up and hammer the closest block to death.

'Wood Elf army in being good at shooting' shock!

That's precisely my point. Why punish one army for being good at the one thing they are supposed to be good at? So what if the Wood Elves can move up and cause damage to the closest block, damaging it and making it less likely to completely wipe the floor with the Glade Guard unit in hand to hand combat?

The GG units will go down if caught in combat by decent fighting blocks. The opponent therefore needs to catch them by tactical deployment, considered movement, and effective tactical use of his/her army. Surely that's the point of the game?

Or is it to merely push a few huge blocks of troops straight at each other and roll a load of dice for a while...

Drongol
10-02-2012, 15:25
If an army only has one or two viable competitive builds, that is a problem IMO.

Absolutely. It's a problem, but it's not the same sort of problem as the book not having viable competitive builds.

A good Tomb Kings list can and will be very effective (as I believe 'Ard Boyz has proven, at least somewhat), but it is certainly limited in choices and not the most exciting list to play. Nonetheless, Tomb Kings at their best can compete with the other 8th Edition books, and at their worst, they're not as bad as some people want to make them out to be (especially compared to the other 8th Ed. books at their worst). Certainly not for the tactically-inept, however. ;)

Ronin[XiC]
10-02-2012, 16:24
Ard boys does not really prove anything.
The earlier rounds are just whacking newbies with deathstars and the later rounds are too small and too crowded with newbies who used deathstars in the earlier rounds...

Echunia
10-02-2012, 17:00
'Wood Elf army in being good at shooting' shock!

That's precisely my point. Why punish one army for being good at the one thing they are supposed to be good at? So what if the Wood Elves can move up and cause damage to the closest block, damaging it and making it less likely to completely wipe the floor with the Glade Guard unit in hand to hand combat?

The GG units will go down if caught in combat by decent fighting blocks. The opponent therefore needs to catch them by tactical deployment, considered movement, and effective tactical use of his/her army. Surely that's the point of the game?

Or is it to merely push a few huge blocks of troops straight at each other and roll a load of dice for a while...

Well, I think you still don't grasp the match up system. The problem with unrestricted shooting is that some armies are incredibly weak to it (elite t3 armies). They don't want games that are only based around shooting as it can still be effective because of the mass s4.

What I'm trying to say is that you won't put WEs up vs their worst match up (don't know what that is) but against something they will crush like HE.


;6082517']Ard boys does not really prove anything.
The earlier rounds are just whacking newbies with deathstars and the later rounds are too small and too crowded with newbies who used deathstars in the earlier rounds...

QFT

Drongol
10-02-2012, 17:31
;6082517']Ard boys does not really prove anything.
The earlier rounds are just whacking newbies with deathstars and the later rounds are too small and too crowded with newbies who used deathstars in the earlier rounds...

Interesting. So winning in what is the most cutthroat tournament available means nothing about balance of capability to win, which means that in ETCHammer they need all sorts of bonuses to be able to compete against all these armies that they have shown that they can crush.

Again, interesting.

KidDiscordia
10-02-2012, 17:50
Actually it appears that ETCHammer is based a team trying to set up the greatest mismatch in their favor at best or minimizing the mismatch to reduce team point losses all under the unbrella of a Rules Cabal setting limits based on their prejudices. Seems like Team 'Ard Boyz to me.

IcedCrow
10-02-2012, 18:01
Absolutely. It's a problem, but it's not the same sort of problem as the book not having viable competitive builds.

A good Tomb Kings list can and will be very effective (as I believe 'Ard Boyz has proven, at least somewhat), but it is certainly limited in choices and not the most exciting list to play. Nonetheless, Tomb Kings at their best can compete with the other 8th Edition books, and at their worst, they're not as bad as some people want to make them out to be (especially compared to the other 8th Ed. books at their worst). Certainly not for the tactically-inept, however. ;)

I never got the "tomb kings are rubbish" debates to be honest. Usually the people going on about the tomb kings being horrible were people who played with top tier combos that didn't like playing at a higher difficulty level.

I am playing tomb kings in 2012. I won a few tournaments with them back in the early 2000s and am looking forward to dusting them off again.

Snake1311
10-02-2012, 18:26
Actually it appears that ETCHammer is based a team trying to set up the greatest mismatch in their favor at best or minimizing the mismatch to reduce team point losses all under the unbrella of a Rules Cabal setting limits based on their prejudices. Seems like Team 'Ard Boyz to me.

If you read and took a few minutes to get your head around the matching process in the beginning of each round, you will see how wrong you are. Pretty much every army has to be set up as an 'all-comers' list.

I've played against a wood elf bow list with 90ish shots, and they outshot my dwarfs without even breaking a sweat. Its not just a few armies that are weak to it, its everything which is either predominately fragile, or predomonately slow. Which is everything except Brets and some WoC lists.

I'm a pro comp player, and I strongly disagree that 'Ard Boyz doesn't matter:
-it highlights imbalances in the system at every level (low-level matches are stomps, high level games are often decided by the roll of a single die)
-it shows a strong indication of an army's power level
-it's a good indication of what should be comped
-it's a good advertisement of comp (since most people facing some of the broken builds will realise the game won't function properly without it)
-since everyone and their grandma brings the most bent list they can (because thats not the hard part), I do believe that the overall winners wil have shown more tactical skill than the ones who lost with lists (almost) as dirty as theirs. Except that the capacity for clever 'tactics' in some of those lists was pretty low. And that many were chance-dependant, so maaaybe the iwnner is just the luckiest guy out there.

A good indication of whether its skill or not that affects Ard Boyz, is to see if there are some people consistantly performing very well - meaning wining with skill - or if the top guys are just the ones that roll best, and change every year. In the ETC there is definitely correlation between a country's performance in the 3 years its taken place.

Duke Ramulots
10-02-2012, 18:44
Lol @ the game not functioning without comp. Have you ever played 8th without comp? I would never play a non functional game myself, why do you stay in a hobby that you have to "fix" to make it playable?

ewar
10-02-2012, 18:56
If you read and took a few minutes to get your head around the matching process in the beginning of each round, you will see how wrong you are. Pretty much every army has to be set up as an 'all-comers' list.

I've played against a wood elf bow list with 90ish shots, and they outshot my dwarfs without even breaking a sweat. Its not just a few armies that are weak to it, its everything which is either predominately fragile, or predomonately slow. Which is everything except Brets and some WoC lists.

I'm a pro comp player, and I strongly disagree that 'Ard Boyz doesn't matter:
-it highlights imbalances in the system at every level (low-level matches are stomps, high level games are often decided by the roll of a single die)
-it shows a strong indication of an army's power level
-it's a good indication of what should be comped
-it's a good advertisement of comp (since most people facing some of the broken builds will realise the game won't function properly without it)
-since everyone and their grandma brings the most bent list they can (because thats not the hard part), I do believe that the overall winners wil have shown more tactical skill than the ones who lost with lists (almost) as dirty as theirs. Except that the capacity for clever 'tactics' in some of those lists was pretty low. And that many were chance-dependant, so maaaybe the iwnner is just the luckiest guy out there.

A good indication of whether its skill or not that affects Ard Boyz, is to see if there are some people consistantly performing very well - meaning wining with skill - or if the top guys are just the ones that roll best, and change every year. In the ETC there is definitely correlation between a country's performance in the 3 years its taken place.

Some excellent points and I'd be really interested to see if that data is available and what the results are.

I'm not too certain what the rules are for Ard Boyz but some of the sillier builds just don't work in some scenarios i.e. the folding fortress/100 archers/teclis thing.

Snake1311
10-02-2012, 19:41
Lol @ the game not functioning without comp. Have you ever played 8th without comp? I would never play a non functional game myself, why do you stay in a hobby that you have to "fix" to make it playable?

It doesn't function at any sort of competitive level, no.

As with evreyone else, I made my first steps into WHF without comp (not that long ago, since I've never played a full sized 7th ed game). Played my dwarfs vs my flatmate's Brets at gradually increasing points with whatever units we each had - shield dwarfs, miners, men at arms. We quickly spotted that artilery was effective, so I got a fair bit of it (it helped that every battalion and starting set came with one piece, and i got gifted a GT), and one or two of our first big games had me fielding ~7 pieces (3 cannons, GT, 2 OGs, Anvil) as well as 40-50 thunderers. You can guess what the outcome was, and how much fun was had on either side - and since we knew there was a competitive scene, we looked at comp packs and have never looked back. So yeah, that little period of naivity ("this game is great out the box") lasted less than a year for me, of which maybe 3 months was 2000pt+ play. I can't believe people are still stuck in that craphole after playing for years.

Since then I've played uncomped games in many casual environments, but the quality of the actual game (as in, whats happening on the table, and not how much fun we're having messing about and trashtalking around it) has been pretty low. Its the realm of ridicuous deathstars (40 chosen O.O), 600 pt unkillable stubborn heroes, and uncomped uberspells taking a dump on any semblance of battle plan you might have had.

And you know what, the game does NOT function without comp. Here's an example close to my heart as a dwarf player: Teclis. Lore of Shadow dumping pit of shades on your I2-at-best and autokilled-at-worst targets, you have NO reasonable speed to reach him to even attempt to take him out, and since if even one elf remains out of a 50-strong unit you get NO points you can forget getting anything out of shooting.

TsukeFox
10-02-2012, 20:41
The kadai destroyer should not be removed if they are alowed, just rule it so that it can still always be wounded on a 6 and raise the points cost abit.

Right-sOunds fair enough.
In any event no reason to outlaw those poor Chaos Dwarf players- who realy should learn to make a list without the Destoryer so people will not be grumpy.

Phazael
10-02-2012, 20:49
The Kadai Destroyer is what happens when you let the community who play the army collaborate with forge world to write a FAQ.

As for the rest of the ECT (aka Cripplehammer) restrictions, why don't you just come out and say "We really want High Elves and Dwarves to win!" and be done with it, instead of just keep moving the goal posts? Most Dwarf HArd Boyz lists I saw last year would be perfectly legal in that list. And can someone explain to me why Dark Elven Bolt Throwers are limited to two, but the same war machine on High Elves is unrestricted? Is light armor really the tipping point there?

Gazak Blacktoof
10-02-2012, 21:26
A dark elf army has more effective shooting overall, repeater crossbows being far superior to longbows and capable of combat when needed. I would guess that because of the more effective shooting it was considered necessary to put caps on all of their long ranged shooting.

I think repeater bolt throwers are largely pretty rubbish. 8th edition is hardly a target rich environment for a war machine who's ideal target was picking off pricey fast cavalry.

It seems unnecessary to me too.

Satan
10-02-2012, 21:57
This time of the year again?

Sigh. Still don't get how aggrevated by the existence of comp or suggestion of imbalance. ETC is a special set of restrictions for a specific tournament format, not a suggestion of universal "fix-it" for whfb.

And people really need to stop pulling stuff out of thin air, because then you get stuff like this:


The Kadai Destroyer is what happens when you let the community who play the army collaborate with forge world to write a FAQ.

As for the rest of the ECT (aka Cripplehammer) restrictions, why don't you just come out and say "We really want High Elves and Dwarves to win!" and be done with it, instead of just keep moving the goal posts? Most Dwarf HArd Boyz lists I saw last year would be perfectly legal in that list. And can someone explain to me why Dark Elven Bolt Throwers are limited to two, but the same war machine on High Elves is unrestricted? Is light armor really the tipping point there?

Where did you get the impression that the community had any influence on the FAQ?

Lord Inquisitor
10-02-2012, 22:01
The Kadai Destroyer is what happens when you let the community who play the army collaborate with forge world to write a FAQ.
It's unfortunate but it is 100% in accordance with the rulebook FAQ. If Flaming Sword can make things wound automatically then the Destroyer can make things fail to wound it automatically. What it needed was an errata, but the FAQ was correct.


Most Dwarf HArd Boyz lists I saw last year would be perfectly legal in that list.
Funny, I didn't see any Dwarfs in the finals last year at all (and there were even Wood Elves and Bretonnians represented there!). Maybe they're not that in need of comping?

tmarichards
10-02-2012, 22:51
So, given that we've had 5 pages of discussion about the comp and so on, how about looking at what armies teams will likely be taking, and with what builds? Apologies in advance if I used some Pokemon-esque terminology, I've been getting back into it recently... For my 2 cents:

Daemons- I'd imagine 4 heralds will be the way to go, it limits a lot of the bad match-ups because you don't have a greater daemon that can make O&G, Empire, Dwarfs or Ogres all a bad match-up. Should be able to get some strong builds out to go and get some points, so an offensive list.

Dark Elves- again, probably another one to go out there and get some points. Personally, I think double level 4 will be the way to go, at the moment I'd looking at Shadow and Death, as it lets you abuse a lot of the current meta of characters not having much in the way of wards. Double initiative based spells also worries Ogres... if there is a drop to a 4 dice cap per spell, I think Dark magic would become a lot stronger as well.

Dwarfs- definitely a walling set, probably combining with Empire (or Ogres) to present a double cannon match-up to really bully anyone who turns up with Greater Daemons/Dragons and so on

Empire- I'd anticipate a Tank and 2 cannons, mortar and Helstrom set, probably with Shadow/Light

Ogres- double Ironblaster has to be a given right? DeathFisting is scary, and I think Mournfangs will be less prevalent- maybe 2 pairs?

Skaven- still allowed the Power Scroll, so a double Seer is kind of viable, but perhaps not optimal. Really not sure here, I'd be very interested to hear some opinions

Lizards- still pretty dirty, I'd still be tempted to try and get 2 frogs in there though even with the skink cap. Even a more standard Light list would still be pretty strong I think.

Warriors- Disco Stu, a knight bus and Shadow magic would be my choice. Can either go and get points or wall pretty effectively.

Outside chance- O&G, but what do you drop for them? They add in the highest amount of shots (80 Night Goblin archers with poison BSB) and the world in war machines and nasty, nasty chaff. Maybe take them instead of Daemons, or Skaven if the dice cap goes down to 4 dice. With double Ironblaster as a given, having both Dwarfs and Empire may be a little OTT, so I could see some reasoning behind Dwarfs going.

Phazael
10-02-2012, 22:58
This time of the year again?

Sigh. Still don't get how aggrevated by the existence of comp or suggestion of imbalance. ETC is a special set of restrictions for a specific tournament format, not a suggestion of universal "fix-it" for whfb.

And people really need to stop pulling stuff out of thin air, because then you get stuff like this:



Where did you get the impression that the community had any influence on the FAQ?

The part where they thank the community for their help with the FAQ perhaps?

Also, I could care less what ECT does with their own event. Thats no one's business but the organizers and people in attendance. What I take exception to are the tons of whiners who act like a super restrictive straightjacket return to 6th edition that was meant to be used for one specific team event somehow should be applied to every single game of warhammer played everywhere on the planet. And there are a lot of these people out there......

Echunia
10-02-2012, 23:34
So, given that we've had 5 pages of discussion about the comp and so on, how about looking at what armies teams will likely be taking, and with what builds? Apologies in advance if I used some Pokemon-esque terminology, I've been getting back into it recently... For my 2 cents:

Daemons- I'd imagine 4 heralds will be the way to go, it limits a lot of the bad match-ups because you don't have a greater daemon that can make O&G, Empire, Dwarfs or Ogres all a bad match-up. Should be able to get some strong builds out to go and get some points, so an offensive list.

Dark Elves- again, probably another one to go out there and get some points. Personally, I think double level 4 will be the way to go, at the moment I'd looking at Shadow and Death, as it lets you abuse a lot of the current meta of characters not having much in the way of wards. Double initiative based spells also worries Ogres... if there is a drop to a 4 dice cap per spell, I think Dark magic would become a lot stronger as well.

Dwarfs- definitely a walling set, probably combining with Empire (or Ogres) to present a double cannon match-up to really bully anyone who turns up with Greater Daemons/Dragons and so on

Empire- I'd anticipate a Tank and 2 cannons, mortar and Helstrom set, probably with Shadow/Light

Ogres- double Ironblaster has to be a given right? DeathFisting is scary, and I think Mournfangs will be less prevalent- maybe 2 pairs?

Skaven- still allowed the Power Scroll, so a double Seer is kind of viable, but perhaps not optimal. Really not sure here, I'd be very interested to hear some opinions

Lizards- still pretty dirty, I'd still be tempted to try and get 2 frogs in there though even with the skink cap. Even a more standard Light list would still be pretty strong I think.

Warriors- Disco Stu, a knight bus and Shadow magic would be my choice. Can either go and get points or wall pretty effectively.

Outside chance- O&G, but what do you drop for them? They add in the highest amount of shots (80 Night Goblin archers with poison BSB) and the world in war machines and nasty, nasty chaff. Maybe take them instead of Daemons, or Skaven if the dice cap goes down to 4 dice. With double Ironblaster as a given, having both Dwarfs and Empire may be a little OTT, so I could see some reasoning behind Dwarfs going.

On dark elves - I've heard of some of the teams making this one of their blocking armies. As a well designed dark elves list can take on most things. In this first draft I think the lists will be something like 20 shades + cauldron + double blackguard and a shadow/ death sorc. Round that out with some frenzied corsairs and 14 xbows + magic item xbow (cant remember the name :<). Level 1 or 2 on fire is probably a given for this army I would imagine. 5 dicing a powered up fireball is probably viable.

On Skaven - Last year the bell was really popular with the fencers blade greyseer. I think it's probably viable for more of a blocking list, but the double greyseer with power scroll could indeed crush a lot of things.

On Warriors - I think the marauder spam list is still pretty viable, but there's still merit for the elite list. I agree that the cav buss would feature as it can't just be 13th off.

O&G - There has to be some way to make them dirty with no unit caps O.o . But I think you basically have it down, big poison unit and max warmachines : D. I don't know wh would get dropped... probably the list with the weakest player in the team. Maybe warriors tbh? All the others just work to well in the ETC setting, well I would put my bets on warriors or dwarfs. That being said, I think the O&G restrictions will be revised in the next draft.

ewar
10-02-2012, 23:47
It doesn't function at any sort of competitive level, no.

That's not really true though is it?

All armies have bad matchups, that doesn't make the game unbalanced as long those matchups are evenly spaced around the armies - and you know what, for 15 armies with a hell of a lot units 8th is damned balanced. There are only a handful of abusive builds which really upset this (usually involving folding fortress) which SHOULD be restricted through the proper use of scenarios.

Your Bret/Dwarf example is a good one actually as there are a fair few of the scenarios which should screw your gun line nicely - did you never get any bad rolls on Dawn Attack/Meeting engagement and find your flank completely rolled by Knights? That should happen pretty damned regularly to an army with 7 warmachines and 50 thunderers. I've played with Brets vs Dwarfs a fair few times, and if the brets pick their battles carefully they can win consistently on narrow margins by just avoiding the dwarf shooting (stay out of range of everything except cannons/GTs) and pick off what you can with 30" bows and peg knights. It's dull, but teaches a gunline how boring it is to play that way by going for low level wins.

I'm happy to play comp or no-comp: what I'm against is the extreme opinion on both sides of the spectrum - reality is much more in the centre.

Duke Ramulots
10-02-2012, 23:53
It doesn't function at any sort of competitive level, no.

As with evreyone else, I made my first steps into WHF without comp (not that long ago, since I've never played a full sized 7th ed game). Played my dwarfs vs my flatmate's Brets at gradually increasing points with whatever units we each had - shield dwarfs, miners, men at arms. We quickly spotted that artilery was effective, so I got a fair bit of it (it helped that every battalion and starting set came with one piece, and i got gifted a GT), and one or two of our first big games had me fielding ~7 pieces (3 cannons, GT, 2 OGs, Anvil) as well as 40-50 thunderers. You can guess what the outcome was, and how much fun was had on either side - and since we knew there was a competitive scene, we looked at comp packs and have never looked back. So yeah, that little period of naivity ("this game is great out the box") lasted less than a year for me, of which maybe 3 months was 2000pt+ play. I can't believe people are still stuck in that craphole after playing for years.

Since then I've played uncomped games in many casual environments, but the quality of the actual game (as in, whats happening on the table, and not how much fun we're having messing about and trashtalking around it) has been pretty low. Its the realm of ridicuous deathstars (40 chosen O.O), 600 pt unkillable stubborn heroes, and uncomped uberspells taking a dump on any semblance of battle plan you might have had.

And you know what, the game does NOT function without comp. Here's an example close to my heart as a dwarf player: Teclis. Lore of Shadow dumping pit of shades on your I2-at-best and autokilled-at-worst targets, you have NO reasonable speed to reach him to even attempt to take him out, and since if even one elf remains out of a 50-strong unit you get NO points you can forget getting anything out of shooting.

Your example is just not true at all, you can easily get to Teclis with rangers and an Anvil charge. The thing is, insttead of trying to use any skill to get around the problem you instead comped him out of the game. Then had the nerve to say the game is better for comp hobling the High elf player because so many people are just bad at killing one SC. Then of corse the dreaded chosen deathstar OMG!!!! a slow moving block of foot sloggers that are easily redirected, flanked, and kept away from your squishy stuff. Dont tell me, you see units like that and charge them in the front like a moth to a flame. BTW your Dwarfs in an uncomped game should smile big fat smiles of glee at the sight of any deathstar, especially if youre playing seven warmachines.

Duke Ramulots
10-02-2012, 23:55
That's not really true though is it?

All armies have bad matchups, that doesn't make the game unbalanced as long those matchups are evenly spaced around the armies - and you know what, for 15 armies with a hell of a lot units 8th is damned balanced. There are only a handful of abusive builds which really upset this (usually involving folding fortress) which SHOULD be restricted through the proper use of scenarios.

Your Bret/Dwarf example is a good one actually as there are a fair few of the scenarios which should screw your gun line nicely - did you never get any bad rolls on Dawn Attack/Meeting engagement and find your flank completely rolled by Knights? That should happen pretty damned regularly to an army with 7 warmachines and 50 thunderers. I've played with Brets vs Dwarfs a fair few times, and if the brets pick their battles carefully they can win consistently on narrow margins by just avoiding the dwarf shooting (stay out of range of everything except cannons/GTs) and pick off what you can with 30" bows and peg knights. It's dull, but teaches a gunline how boring it is to play that way by going for low level wins.

I'm happy to play comp or no-comp: what I'm against is the extreme opinion on both sides of the spectrum - reality is much more in the centre.

My guess is that he plays battle line every single game, comped the other scenarios out due to "imbalance"...lol

Echunia
11-02-2012, 00:04
Guys please stop debating comp vs no-comp, focus on discussing the ETC comp pack! The thread is about discussing the merits of the comp pack not to argue how much you hate/love comp.

Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2012, 00:05
I don't suppose this thread could actually discuss the ETC draft? Rather than the usual crowd of comp-haters turning it into yet another thread about how much we don't need comp. :shifty: We did just do all this in a thread just a week ago.

This is a thread for the ETC restrictions.

cornixt
11-02-2012, 01:22
The Kadai Destroyer is what happens when you let the community who play the army collaborate with forge world to write a FAQ.

Chaos Dwarfs Online simply submitted the questions, the answers were solely Forge World.

NerZuhl
11-02-2012, 02:03
Is there a place where the panel of players discuss the reasoning behind their restrictions? I have always wanted to read up on that stuff regarding ETC. Since these are "top" players, I would like to read into their thinking.

I still think a lot of these restrictions are purposefully boxing certain armies into specific roles for the teams. And I really don't see the point behind the WE restrictions still. In this environment under these restrictions, the WE player definitely can't be a killing army and I don't really see it as a stall army either. So what do they expect out of them?

Drongol
11-02-2012, 02:23
It's unfortunate but it is 100% in accordance with the rulebook FAQ. If Flaming Sword can make things wound automatically then the Destroyer can make things fail to wound it automatically. What it needed was an errata, but the FAQ was correct.

Not just that, but if memory serves, it was stated at some point that the Great Taurus in SoM was able to not be wounded by S<3 or such. The K'daai Destroyer has the same rule as the ostensibly even-more-GW model and as such applying it the same way was more or less the obvious choice.

I completely disagree with the obvious choice, mind you, but I understand why it was made. And the Destroyer is just a small part of what pushes Chaos Dwarfs over the edge.

That said, within the confines of the ETC tournament, I have no problem with ETCHammer. Once it goes outside of that particular set of games, that's where I start disliking it.

Echunia
11-02-2012, 08:22
Is there a place where the panel of players discuss the reasoning behind their restrictions? I have always wanted to read up on that stuff regarding ETC. Since these are "top" players, I would like to read into their thinking.

I still think a lot of these restrictions are purposefully boxing certain armies into specific roles for the teams. And I really don't see the point behind the WE restrictions still. In this environment under these restrictions, the WE player definitely can't be a killing army and I don't really see it as a stall army either. So what do they expect out of them?

Go to the warhammer forum: www,warhammer.org.uk . I don't think they necessarily "explain" their actions but a part of the warhammer forum is the ETC forum. If you want to read what ETC players and people involved in the comp pack say then go read the ETC - Warhammer fantasy section!

Drongol
11-02-2012, 13:44
I don't suppose this thread could actually discuss the ETC draft? Rather than the usual crowd of comp-haters turning it into yet another thread about how much we don't need comp. :shifty: We did just do all this in a thread just a week ago.

This is a thread for the ETC restrictions.

In fairness, LI, most of the "comp haters" don't really have a horse in this race. On a personal level, I have no desire to cross the pond to attend a Wacky Warhammer tournament (in fairness, I refuse to drive more than about an hour for a tournament). As such, I couldn't care less what a bunch of guys decide they need to do for their own games.

My issue, as I believe I've stated, is with people who think that ETCHammer is "Just like real Warhammer, but balanced!" Within the confines of the Wacky Warhammer format they have, I'm sure it's great, or it accomplishes exactly what they want it to do. I just don't think it translates well to "Virtually every game played in continental Europe." ;)

Ronin[XiC]
11-02-2012, 14:30
Just a question for everyone who is strictly againts lowering the amount of powerdice you can throw.

What if the game got shipped with a limit of 4 powredice per spell and someone would want to rise the number to 6.

Would you support the proposal (since your current position suggests you favour 6 powerdice) or would you argue against it because you do not tinker with the rules in the ruleobok.

Lordy
11-02-2012, 14:48
;6083867']Just a question for everyone who is strictly againts lowering the amount of powerdice you can throw.

What if the game got shipped with a limit of 4 powredice per spell and someone would want to rise the number to 6.

Would you support the proposal (since your current position suggests you favour 6 powerdice) or would you argue against it because you do not tinker with the rules in the ruleobok.

If the game needed a fix as such I'd be fine with that in a comped environment.

But the idea of comp is to reduce the power of things, not to increase it.

Echunia
11-02-2012, 14:54
In fairness, LI, most of the "comp haters" don't really have a horse in this race. On a personal level, I have no desire to cross the pond to attend a Wacky Warhammer tournament (in fairness, I refuse to drive more than about an hour for a tournament). As such, I couldn't care less what a bunch of guys decide they need to do for their own games.

My issue, as I believe I've stated, is with people who think that ETCHammer is "Just like real Warhammer, but balanced!" Within the confines of the Wacky Warhammer format they have, I'm sure it's great, or it accomplishes exactly what they want it to do. I just don't think it translates well to "Virtually every game played in continental Europe." ;)

Well what I think is funny is that you assume that people who like this comp pack argue that it should be used in all events. Sure some think that it solves some of their issues with the game and what not. But more often than not it is you (the comp hater) that says that we think everyone should adhere to this comp.

-Newsflash- we don't! (gasp)

We are trying to discuss it's merits in the ETC setting not in "Virtually every game played in continental Europe". So lets just discuss that instead, mmmmkay?

Drongol
11-02-2012, 14:59
Well what I think is funny is that you assume that people who like this comp pack argue that it should be used in all events. Sure some think that it solves some of their issues with the game and what not. But more often than not it is you (the comp hater) that says that we think everyone should adhere to this comp.


What I think is funny is that you assume that I assume that some people = all people.

-Newsflash- I don't! (gasp)

Next time, try to keep the tone a little less aggressive. That said, I admit to hyperbole on the "virtually every game" comment--it happens. Nonetheless, there are an awful lot of historical events and playgroups who seem to believe that the ETCHammer rules are meant to be used for all games of Warhammer, and that little bit I disagree with.

Of course, I'm also a bit confused as to why the ETC is such a big deal. If it's just one tournament, then why would the rules for it be posted in General Discussion?

Echunia
11-02-2012, 15:06
What I think is funny is that you assume that I assume that some people = all people.

-Newsflash- I don't! (gasp)

Next time, try to keep the tone a little less aggressive. That said, I admit to hyperbole on the "virtually every game" comment--it happens. Nonetheless, there are an awful lot of historical events and playgroups who seem to believe that the ETCHammer rules are meant to be used for all games of Warhammer, and that little bit I disagree with.

Of course, I'm also a bit confused as to why the ETC is such a big deal. If it's just one tournament, then why would the rules for it be posted in General Discussion?

I'm sorry if I came across agressive, wasn't my intent. I was just getting frustrated.

I think the reason it's a big deal is because it's essentially the world cup of warhammer. Some of the best players of all the major countries come to compete at one event. It's hard to ignore that and call it crap. Sure it's not the original game, but the original game wasn't designed for competetive play.

Duke Ramulots
11-02-2012, 15:36
;6083867']Just a question for everyone who is strictly againts lowering the amount of powerdice you can throw.

What if the game got shipped with a limit of 4 powredice per spell and someone would want to rise the number to 6.

Would you support the proposal (since your current position suggests you favour 6 powerdice) or would you argue against it because you do not tinker with the rules in the ruleobok.

The game was shipped with a 6 dice limit because they understood that every mage needs to have a chance to cast all the spells. There are several spells that require a 24+ or 25+, in ETC hammer a level 1 mage has to roll 5+6+6+6 and 6+6+6+6 to get those off making them almost impossible to cast. While in warhammer they have a much better chance to cast them using 6 dice but also can cast them without irrisitable force leaving room for them to be dispelled. So by eliminating the abillity to throw thos etwo dice you put a severe imbalance into the magic phaze that was not there to begin with and Im glad the makers of the game were able to see that before shipping it. So to answer your question, the 4 die limmit makes anything but level 4 wizards worthless and the game would be much worse had it shipped like that.

quietus1986
11-02-2012, 16:05
What I think is funny is that you assume that I assume that some people = all people.

-Newsflash- I don't! (gasp)

Next time, try to keep the tone a little less aggressive. That said, I admit to hyperbole on the "virtually every game" comment--it happens. Nonetheless, there are an awful lot of historical events and playgroups who seem to believe that the ETCHammer rules are meant to be used for all games of Warhammer, and that little bit I disagree with.

Of course, I'm also a bit confused as to why the ETC is such a big deal. If it's just one tournament, then why would the rules for it be posted in General Discussion?
That's because to get in to the team you have to be on the top of the ranking of your country or get in the team by a kwalifying round.
And most tournament aren't that restricted that count for the ranking.
Ranking for Belgium and the Netherlands
http://www.rankingdernederlanden.eu/
( and the second rating thing http://www.tabletoptournaments.net/be/account/games?action=factions )

Gazak Blacktoof
11-02-2012, 16:17
The game was shipped with a 6 dice limit because they understood that every mage needs to have a chance to cast all the spells. There are several spells that require a 24+ or 25+, in ETC hammer a level 1 mage has to roll 5+6+6+6 and 6+6+6+6 to get those off making them almost impossible to cast. While in warhammer they have a much better chance to cast them using 6 dice but also can cast them without irrisitable force leaving room for them to be dispelled. So by eliminating the abillity to throw thos etwo dice you put a severe imbalance into the magic phaze that was not there to begin with and Im glad the makers of the game were able to see that before shipping it. So to answer your question, the 4 die limmit makes anything but level 4 wizards worthless and the game would be much worse had it shipped like that.

A lot of players feel strongly that only level 4 casters are worth taking in the current meta. Or at least you need one level 4 and maybe a supporting level 2. A level 4 wizard offers better chances to get the spells you want and grants a boost to casting and dispel. Taking that into account, the dice cap therefore limits magic overall.

Or to put it another way, if people don't take level 1 wizards, does it matter that they're worse?

I think that comp should be used to increase diversity in lists by reigning in power from the top and hopefully increasing the power of the most neglected of choices. But failing that, simply reigning in the most powerful units will do, as it at least reduces the overall disparity in power levels.

In my opinion and the opinion of (I would say) most players, when the time is right, it is currently worthwhile throwing 6 dice (or more if possible) at the best spells in the hopes of IF. Tipping the crucial combat or eliminating a good chunk of your opponent's best forces with a vortex or dwellers compensates for any risk to the wizard in all but a narrow set of circumstances. Chucking six dice and praying doesn't make the game any more tactical.

I think that although it isn't the best solution to the problem of excessively-luck-based magic-plays, it at least limits the capability to IF at will and forces people to handle situations in a way that requires more intelligence and pre-planning.

Snowflake
11-02-2012, 16:48
DISCLAIMER: This is not a thread for winging about comp. This is not a thread to discuss comp vs no comp. This is to discuss the first draft of the ETC comp for 2012.

If you are one of those people who just hate comp in every way, DON'T POST!

Now when we've got that over with... I'd like to discuss the first draft they've done for this years ETC. I was a big proponent of last years ETC comp, I think it was pretty good for that kind of event. It dealt with the stuff that bothers me like no dice cap on dark elves and to big deathstars.

But the new draft is just, to much. Now I know Dan Heelan, who's on the committee, said that this draft is crap because the committee has a majority of 8th-haters. This time it feels like they are really messing a bit to much with it.

The things that stood out as bad for me were:

max 5 dice on any spell. - Is 6 really so horrible? I think comp should work to make spells less powerful so 6 dice isn't as prevalent. But there should still be the option if you really need it to go off.

The Dark elves comp. - Now I don't play dark elves but I think the comp on them was extremely harsh. They're not that good... Max 20 shades is fine but this: "player may take up to 2 of following: Pendant of khaeleth\Crown of command\any number of wizards using death & shadow magic\Cauldron of Blood\Hydra." Is just crazy talk! Sure you could still build a good list with double black guard and one shadow wizard + cauldron, but how much worse does it get if he gets to have 1 hydra as well?

The Tomb King comp - We're not that bad. The TK comp is extremely lenient, sure the book is good but 200 extra points, the option for 3 sphinxes and the opponent scores half VP? As well as the ability to generate 1 more power dice than normal armies. I think it would be spot on if they removed the extra points and the VP reduction.


So has anyone else read the pack? What's your thoughts?

Once again try to keep it clean from "I hate comp". Please!

Comp vs no comp debate aside, I agree with you completely that I think this draft is trash. When I read it it reeked of personal bias, and now that you've mentioned most of the committee being 8th haters, I think I can see where that shines through, too. 5-dice cap aside (which is silly), I think it really falls apart in the army specific section. You can easily see where people like/dislike each army. Copied from my TK forum post, it's obvious that the committee:

Like Skaven, hence the barely noticeable restrictions
Like Bretonnia, hence NO restrictions at all
Like Ogres, since there are no penalties on Runemaw, despite it being better in most ways than World Dragon (by still allowing buffs). Also only +1 DD for Deathfisting, seriously?
Like OnG, since they're the only ones who get to go above the models per unit cap, which is odd, since they like Skaven too. Must not be as much.
And on the other side, they have great hate for DE, Lizzies, and Demons, though that's fashionable, so no biggie I guess.

The oddest thing was the near-unnoticeable restrictions on Skaven. Clearly their focus was completely on DE, Lizzies, and Demons.

And yeah, they went totally overboard with the extra points for TK. Though I see they still have some silly restrictions in place anyway. Lots of people don't take the Heirotitan anyway, dunno why they need to put +1 DD on it anyway.

Ronin[XiC]
11-02-2012, 17:29
So to answer your question, the 4 die limmit makes anything but level 4 wizards worthless and the game would be much worse had it shipped like that.

So you'd change the game rules to a 6 dice system if the game had been shipped differently.
Thus you understand why changing the rules can be beneficial.

And level 1-2 wizards really work under 4 dice. Just use those tiny 10+ spells you NEVER see and suddenly you have a much better working magic phase :P

Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2012, 17:54
I dislike the 6-dice limit altogether. It's just clunky game design and entirely arbitrary. A system where there is an increasing risk of outright failure with more dice but no actual limit would have been much better. One of the failings of 8th edition and one of the reasons this area of the game is so frequently tinkered with.

Echunia
11-02-2012, 18:04
;6084085']So you'd change the game rules to a 6 dice system if the game had been shipped differently.
Thus you understand why changing the rules can be beneficial.

And level 1-2 wizards really work under 4 dice. Just use those tiny 10+ spells you NEVER see and suddenly you have a much better working magic phase :P

Agreed, why should a low lvl wizard be able to cast the super spells? He wasn't in 7th. Also you usually take 1 or 2 lvl wizards for the signature spell so they won't be casting big purplesuns anyway. The more I think about it I like the 5 dice thing, 4 is a bit excessive though. It just increases the randomness of something very powerful even more. That's not a good solution, but 5 seems like a happy middle ground.

Duke Ramulots
11-02-2012, 20:09
;6084085']So you'd change the game rules to a 6 dice system if the game had been shipped differently.
Thus you understand why changing the rules can be beneficial.

And level 1-2 wizards really work under 4 dice. Just use those tiny 10+ spells you NEVER see and suddenly you have a much better working magic phase :P

No, your question was loaded. it's a kin to asking me if I'd put a fourth wheel on my car if it only had three. The whole magic system is designed to opperate with a 6 dice per spell casting limit. If they had made a functional 4 dice magic system I would be fine using it.

Snake1311
12-02-2012, 02:35
That's not really true though is it?

All armies have bad matchups, that doesn't make the game unbalanced as long those matchups are evenly spaced around the armies - and you know what, for 15 armies with a hell of a lot units 8th is damned balanced. There are only a handful of abusive builds which really upset this (usually involving folding fortress) which SHOULD be restricted through the proper use of scenarios.

Your Bret/Dwarf example is a good one actually as there are a fair few of the scenarios which should screw your gun line nicely - did you never get any bad rolls on Dawn Attack/Meeting engagement and find your flank completely rolled by Knights? That should happen pretty damned regularly to an army with 7 warmachines and 50 thunderers. I've played with Brets vs Dwarfs a fair few times, and if the brets pick their battles carefully they can win consistently on narrow margins by just avoiding the dwarf shooting (stay out of range of everything except cannons/GTs) and pick off what you can with 30" bows and peg knights. It's dull, but teaches a gunline how boring it is to play that way by going for low level wins.

I'm happy to play comp or no-comp: what I'm against is the extreme opinion on both sides of the spectrum - reality is much more in the centre.

Your premise is wrong. Every army having bad matchups is exactly why its not balanced, because every army BOOK (not army within the book, but the potential overall) should have an equal chance against every other army with one of their all-comer builds. I'm not really sure how I can explain this any better. You know Starcraft, the biggest e-sport in the world? The reason it works competitively is because Terran=Protoss=Zerg; if instead they had a rock-paper-scissors scenario than it wouldnt work because the game would be decided at picks.

Essentialy, what you are saying is that rock-paper-scissors between armies is fine - but then you'll know who wins as soon as you know what everyone's playing, so why play at all?

I'm not a fan of bashing Brets since I think that even with all the whine they are a solid mid-tierer, but they can't do anything constructive against a full gunline. Yeah fine, you can stay at 25" and ping me with archers, whilst I pelt you with Gts and cannons, and guess who will kill more. Pegs can't hunt anything because they will die as son as they come in organ gun range. And for every Dawn Attack which may or may not inconvenience the dwarf, there is watchtower, which the brets can almost never win.

The Low King
12-02-2012, 03:17
Lol, organ guns do an average of 2 wounds to a unit of peg knights each shooting phase...


On topic: im not sure about this comp. I like some bits of it but really dislike others.

My main gripes are:

Dwarfs: I can take hordes of GW warriors but my nice units of shield longbeards and Ironbreakers are out of the questions......

Lizardmen; I like stegs and terradons but they arnt paticularly brilliant.....definatly not good enough to warrent the cap on them....

quietus1986
12-02-2012, 09:22
It isen't going to stay this way long the captains of the teams aren't oke with allot of the stuff in this comp ( This means it will be changed. )

Ronin[XiC]
12-02-2012, 09:50
No, your question was loaded. it's a kin to asking me if I'd put a fourth wheel on my car if it only had three. The whole magic system is designed to opperate with a 6 dice per spell casting limit. If they had made a functional 4 dice magic system I would be fine using it.

hundreds of tournaments in Germany use the 4-dice system. It works so much better than the 6-dice system. It's less random, more strategic and much more enjoyable

And of course my question was loaded. But it made clear that you are willing to change a rulesystem if it's not optimal.

Bodysnatcher
12-02-2012, 11:01
;6084918']hundreds of tournaments in Germany use the 4-dice system. It works so much better than the 6-dice system. It's less random, more strategic and much more enjoyable

And of course my question was loaded. But it made clear that you are willing to change a rulesystem if it's not optimal.

Fewer dice is by definition MORE random.

Snake1311
12-02-2012, 12:25
Fewer dice is by definition MORE random.

The idea is that since the chance for miscast increases exponentionally, with 4 dice you cannot reasonably rely on it going through in a game, so you have to actually think about your magic phase instead of just throwing six dice at the one spell you want.

Also, with 2d6 winds, 6 dice per spell often means the opponent doesnt even have 6 dispell dice total.

Bodysnatcher
12-02-2012, 12:35
The idea is that since the chance for miscast increases exponentionally, with 4 dice you cannot reasonably rely on it going through in a game, so you have to actually think about your magic phase instead of just throwing six dice at the one spell you want.

Also, with 2d6 winds, 6 dice per spell often means the opponent doesnt even have 6 dispell dice total.

Thereby adding the strategy of the dispell scroll or equivalent. Use it early on something nasty? Or hold it for the potential nasty coming up? Also, with the 2D6 winds, if the dispeller doesn't have 6 dice, it's unlikely that the caster has significantly more than 6. Besides, the caster is taking the risk by having to be in range, having to have sufficient power dice, having to select the correct target and then not blowing himself up in the process.

The big problem with the 4 dice limit is it becomes 'irresistable or nothing' for the bigger spells.

ewar
12-02-2012, 14:30
Your premise is wrong. Every army having bad matchups is exactly why its not balanced, because every army BOOK (not army within the book, but the potential overall) should have an equal chance against every other army with one of their all-comer builds. I'm not really sure how I can explain this any better. You know Starcraft, the biggest e-sport in the world? The reason it works competitively is because Terran=Protoss=Zerg; if instead they had a rock-paper-scissors scenario than it wouldnt work because the game would be decided at picks.

Essentialy, what you are saying is that rock-paper-scissors between armies is fine - but then you'll know who wins as soon as you know what everyone's playing, so why play at all?

I'm not a fan of bashing Brets since I think that even with all the whine they are a solid mid-tierer, but they can't do anything constructive against a full gunline. Yeah fine, you can stay at 25" and ping me with archers, whilst I pelt you with Gts and cannons, and guess who will kill more. Pegs can't hunt anything because they will die as son as they come in organ gun range. And for every Dawn Attack which may or may not inconvenience the dwarf, there is watchtower, which the brets can almost never win.

I don't want to take the thread off on a complete tangent, so I'll keep this brief - 15 army books with a 10 year cycle. You will NOT get complete balance, so there will always be bad matchups unless you limit the armies in number and/or playstyle, which I'm sure no one wants. Taking your reductio ad absurdum argument is silly - 8th ed warhammer is not rock paper scissors. Even straight out of the box it is VERY balanced now that the powerscroll has gone. It's not perfect, but it's closer than it has been since I started playing in 1990. Starcraft has 3 factions and needs constant tweaking since launch with feedback from hundreds of thousands of players, and I'm sure even that is not perfect.

OT: I wouldn't play ETC restrictions, as I they're much too strict for my liking. The SCGT ones are exactly the sort of thing I'm happy playing. However, as has been pointed out, they are designed for a specific purpose, so as long as TOs are sensible and don't start applying them to everything then, who cares right?

Duke Ramulots
12-02-2012, 15:36
;6084918']hundreds of tournaments in Germany use the 4-dice system.

that means nothing to me


It works so much better than the 6-dice system. Thats opinion


It's less random, This is plain wrong


more strategic and much more enjoyable It actually is less stretigic as you use less and the last bit is more opinion.





And of course my question was loaded. But it made clear that you are willing to change a rulesystem if it's not optimal.No I said I would not change the system, learn to read. I said if the game was shipped with a 6 dice system but said it was 4 dice it would suck. I wouldnt play a game I didnt like, thats why I quit playing for four years while that travesty of 7th ed was out.

DaemonReign
12-02-2012, 16:36
And on the other side, they have great hate for DE, Lizzies, and Demons, though that's fashionable, so no biggie I guess.


*lol* Hell yeah!
They're being fashionable rubbing the backs of the whining-crowd hybernating over from 7th Ed.
What an awesome basis for a comp system really. Take the most base sentiments and make them holy writ for the 'bestest of players'. *Bah..*

Whatever.. It's all contradictive. They supposedly hate 8th Ed and resolve that by comping it as though it was 7th. And then they sell that watered down lie to us creating this ideological rift in the community.

So yeah.. ETC is bad for the hobby. In the most general sense. This thread proves it. It's now moved from opinion to objective fact. :p

Lordy
12-02-2012, 17:01
ETC is fantastic for Warhammer, the entire competition has taken Warhammer to the next level.
Never before has Warhammer been played on such a massive international level, it's basically a Warhammer world cup.

Comp on the whole has also been absolutely brilliant for Warhammer, for me it's made an unplayable game very enjoyable and with comp Warhammer is the greatest table top game to ever be made.
I suspect most of you comp haters would struggle to win games in a comped environment or that you have never even tried to play comp, just my opinion though.

NerZuhl
12-02-2012, 17:19
ETC is fantastic for Warhammer, the entire competition has taken Warhammer to the next level.
Never before has Warhammer been played on such a massive international level, it's basically a Warhammer world cup.

Comp on the whole has also been absolutely brilliant for Warhammer, for me it's made an unplayable game very enjoyable and with comp Warhammer is the greatest table top game to ever be made.
I suspect most of you comp haters would struggle to win games in a comped environment or that you have never even tried to play comp, just my opinion though.

Your just inviting backlash with such blatant opinionated statements.

ETC is good for those going to ETC. It isn't the savior of anything and I hope to god they don't preach it that way (haven't seen it from them at least), it only comes from people like you.

Warhammer is perfectly playable out of the box. House ruling things to make it more enjoyable is up to the individuals or community. Claiming house rulings to be anything more than they are is a waste of time.

back OT: Since it is a team event, what roles do you think each army book plays? And do you believe it impacts their rulings?

Lordy
12-02-2012, 17:26
Well like it or not, comp is on the rise and with good reason, it increases the competitiveness and enjoyment of the game 10 fold.

There are lots more comped events now than uncomped thankfully.
The only reason pro comp people are not posting here is because of the forum bully boys pushing them away.

NerZuhl
12-02-2012, 17:38
Well like it or not, comp is on the rise and with good reason, it increases the competitiveness and enjoyment of the game 10 fold.

There are lots more comped events now than uncomped thankfully.
The only reason pro comp people are not posting here is because of the forum bully boys pushing them away.

Why not hop over to a comp vs noncomp thread and post there. You are derailing an ETC discussion. And anti-comp people can grant some great opinions against some of these ETC rulings. I am not anti-comp, but I don't' care for this document for many of the reasons mentioned earlier (Namely I can't play WE strength of shooting).

back OT: Honestly, I think I would prefer they would get rid of the bonus points for WE and just remove the bow cap for the army. OnG get to play to their theme of hordes with no unit caps. Even in this environment, I don't think WE would be OP with unlimited bows.

Lord Inquisitor
12-02-2012, 18:32
My issue, as I believe I've stated, is with people who think that ETCHammer is "Just like real Warhammer, but balanced!" Within the confines of the Wacky Warhammer format they have, I'm sure it's great, or it accomplishes exactly what they want it to do. I just don't think it translates well to "Virtually every game played in continental Europe." ;)
There are several aspects here and I think they're relevant.

1) The ETC make comp for their own tournament. I'm not intimately familiar with how they make their comp, but I doubt very much their restrictions are driven by concerns beyond their own tournament.
2) A lot of other tournaments use ETC as a template. This is because ETC is respected and have done all the legwork. Even if people don't agree 100% it's usually easier to port in the ETC wholesale rather than come up with their own comp. I don't know about "every game" but it seems to be a respectable proportion of european tournaments.



Like Skaven, hence the barely noticeable restrictions
Like Bretonnia, hence NO restrictions at all
Skaven seem fairly restricted by the core rules. No more than 40 models limits them quite a bit. 0-1 on all rares too. I don't think that's barely noticable.
Bretonnians are the height of cheese these days are they? I don't think they need restricting. Note they also didn't get a bonus 200 points like beasts.

Like Ogres, since there are no penalties on Runemaw, despite it being better in most ways than World Dragon (by still allowing buffs). Also only +1 DD for Deathfisting, seriously?
Runemaw just isn't seen in most competitive lists anymore, even after the FAQ. Deathfisting created a hype but it just sucks in practice. It just isn't all that. Death is not a good Lore for Ogres compared with their other choices in general. Only two spells actually stack with the Greedy Fist, only one of those is boostable beyond 12". So a combo with ONE spell is worth all this? Pfff. Deathfisting is scary on paper but it just isn't all that in practice.


And on the other side, they have great hate for DE, Lizzies, and Demons, though that's fashionable, so no biggie I guess.
DE, Lizards and Daemons all did well at Ard Boyz this year (although Lizards are noticeably nastier at 3K). I think the restrictions are a bit harsh too, particularly against Lizards but a lot of very nasty combos are quashed.


And yeah, they went totally overboard with the extra points for TK. Though I see they still have some silly restrictions in place anyway. Lots of people don't take the Heirotitan anyway, dunno why they need to put +1 DD on it anyway.
I see the heirotitan build from time to time. I don't know why it needs +1DD particularly but I can sort of see the sense there. TK are certainly the weakest of the 8th books but I do have to agree with you that I'm not sure they're +200 points bad. Particularly when other armies have been held back with the restrictions.

Put simply, I don't agree 100% with most of the restrictions but I can see where they're coming from with a lot of them.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 00:37
ETC is fantastic for Warhammer, the entire competition has taken Warhammer to the next level.
Never before has Warhammer been played on such a massive international level, it's basically a Warhammer world cup.

Comp on the whole has also been absolutely brilliant for Warhammer, for me it's made an unplayable game very enjoyable and with comp Warhammer is the greatest table top game to ever be made.
I suspect most of you comp haters would struggle to win games in a comped environment or that you have never even tried to play comp, just my opinion though.

What new level, there is not one thing you can do with the comp that you cannot do without it.

Trains_Get_Robbed
13-02-2012, 05:24
What new level, there is not one thing you can do with the comp that you cannot do without it.

^^^ This (good sir/madam)'s post has been correct throughout this entire thread. Objectivity is not fact, ETC is nice for those that play it, or want to play it. However, preaching it as "ACTUAL WARHAMMER" or "THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY WARHAMMER" can not only be easily refuted, but proven so in adequate that the only way to defend such is to cling on the sinking ship that it is.

Echunia
13-02-2012, 06:01
back OT: Since it is a team event, what roles do you think each army book plays? And do you believe it impacts their rulings?

Ahh, back on topic! I think that some of the more flexible armies are used as blocking armies, i.e. armies that are thrown up against the other teams hard armies. Stuff that takes the bad match ups, most obvious would be the dark elves, but I think skaven, dwarfs and empire could fit as well. Then you probably have lists that can take lots of points but are kinda vulnerable to some stuff, like daemons, VC and lizards. Now the lesser armies usually fit somewhere in between or are built for either roll. Brets for example can be built for both roles and do it pretty well.

There are some staples that every team takes, and from the little I've read on the warhammer forum, the main goal seems to encourage other choices. I don't see this comp pack as being effective at that thou. As DE, daemons, skaven still are predominantly better than most stuff. We'll see how the VC and Ogres do, but I think they will do very well.

Snake1311
13-02-2012, 11:58
Thereby adding the strategy of the dispell scroll or equivalent. Use it early on something nasty? Or hold it for the potential nasty coming up? Also, with the 2D6 winds, if the dispeller doesn't have 6 dice, it's unlikely that the caster has significantly more than 6. Besides, the caster is taking the risk by having to be in range, having to have sufficient power dice, having to select the correct target and then not blowing himself up in the process.

The big problem with the 4 dice limit is it becomes 'irresistable or nothing' for the bigger spells.

The dispeller will only have 6 dice in 11/36 cases, the caster in 26/36. So you can force your favourite spell on 6 dice vs less-than-6-dice on roughly 3 out of 6 turns, which is a LOT. Your other considerations:
- sufficient power dice. We have already established when you will have those.
- being in range - barely an issue dude, almost everything in 24"
- caster risk: the miscast table is a JOKE related to the strength of the spells, and it only happens ~30% of the time on 6 dice (plus then your spell goes through for sure). Its safer to roll 6 dice on spells than to shoot any artillery piece in the game bar Dwarven Forged cannons.
- Its not 'irresistable or nothing', because the Boxcars chance drops exponentially to about 10% for 5 dice, and even lower for 4, so you woudn't even be trying out for it in the first place (as in, you'd cast other spells instead of going for your uber if you were afraid of casting values). That said, the average on 4 dice is 14, so 18 form a level 4 wizard - which can cast you most level 6 spells. I'm personally an advocate of 5 over 4, which means average value of 21.5.


The one thing you can do with comp that you cannot do without is play competitively, since the PREMISE is that it gives each army BOOK a competitive chance (whether the execution achieves this is what we are meant to be talking about in here). I don't think there were many Wood Elfs on the high league tables in Ard Boyz hmm?

OT: I do think they've done a good job with balancing the armies overall, as we are trying to build our own selection and are actually struggling to dismiss anything (there are auto-includes, but they are mostly driven by personal preferences). The only army that we have dismissed outright so far is Beastmen, which is mainly because they don't appear to bring anything unique to the table, and we already have plenty of combat armies. We did come to the conclusion that DoC are overnerfed, but since we don't have an experienced DoC player we didn't really dwell on it for too long.

Since the way that pairings work you can't really avoid bad matchups, all armies have to be all-comers - so no vulnerability to 'some stuff', since the opponents will take advantage of it. Pretty much every army is allowed ONE really bad matchup against the 15 armies out there (because one is kinda unavoidable really), and if there are two we probably won't take it. For example, my dwarfs very obviously get destroyed by Book of Hoeth with shadow since the pits are devastating, the mage can port around from the lore attribute, and I can't realisticly engage him if he keeps a respectable distance.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 14:05
Well like it or not, comp is on the rise and with good reason, it increases the competitiveness and enjoyment of the game 10 fold.

There are lots more comped events now than uncomped thankfully.
The only reason pro comp people are not posting here is because of the forum bully boys pushing them away.

I love how you state your opinion as fact. The game for me is far less enjoyable with the restrictions set forth by every comp package Ive seen. Also me thinks you don't know what competetiveness is, true competetors play without handicaps or go one step further and handicap themselves.

As for calling people bullies online, that is pretty lame. We all have our opinions and have the right to express them with as much zeal as we like. If you're intimidated by people that disagree with you then seek help.

Lordy
13-02-2012, 14:26
I love how you state your opinion as fact. The game for me is far less enjoyable with the restrictions set forth by every comp package Ive seen. Also me thinks you don't know what competetiveness is, true competetors play without handicaps or go one step further and handicap themselves.

As for calling people bullies online, that is pretty lame. We all have our opinions and have the right to express them with as much zeal as we like. If you're intimidated by people that disagree with you then seek help.

Well I'll just tell you this; I must have played in 30 tournaments by now, played 2 uncomped tournies.
I've won 1 tournament, can you guess what that was? Yes that's right an uncomped tournament, the highest i've placed in uncomped is 4th.

The reason is, I made a stupidly powerful uncomped list and I destroyed people I had no right to destroy, I won simply because I had a better army than most of them, nothing to do with my level of skill (which is clearly very average as my real tournament (comped) results show, I lose to better players in those because I cant simply pick an unkillable unit and win.

After reading your posts on here, your desperation to rid the world of comp, i think it's pretty clear who needs some help matey.

Good luck with your true competitiveness, when you start playing with the real players in the world I'll look forward to you having your eyes blown wide open :D

Comp is on the rise, embrace the change, seriously once you've gone comp you will never look back.

IcedCrow
13-02-2012, 14:33
I enjoy the fact that there are comped tournaments and then there are things like 'Ard Boyz. It gives people who like either a place to play despite what my own personal preferences are.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 14:42
Well I'll just tell you this; I must have played in 30 tournaments by now, played 2 uncomped tournies.
I've won 1 tournament, can you guess what that was? Yes that's right an uncomped tournament, the highest i've placed in uncomped is 4th.

your anecdotal evidence completely proves your point /sarcasm


The reason is, I made a stupidly powerful uncomped list and I destroyed people I had no right to destroy, I won simply because I had a better army than most of them, nothing to do with my level of skill (which is clearly very average as my real tournament (comped) results show, I lose to better players in those because I cant simply pick an unkillable unit and win. Do tell, what was this uber powerfull list of unkillable madness and was it in 8th edition?


After reading your posts on here, your desperation to rid the world of comp, i think it's pretty clear who needs some help matey. You have no idea, I campaign against the "comp" they're putting into BJJ even moreso and probably get a bit carried away but the sissification of everything in this world needs to stop.


Good luck with your true competitiveness, when you start playing with the real players in the world I'll look forward to you having your eyes blown wide open :D
Comp is on the rise, embrace the change, seriously once you've gone comp you will never look back.

Wow, in one fell swoop you insult every player I've played. With statements like that, how on earth could I have ever not seen you are so very wise. BTW, ive been playing warhammer for almost two decades, I've wasted far to much time playing comphammer.

Snake1311
13-02-2012, 14:53
Dammit guys, move your little squabble over to the RELEVANT thread. Ramulots, you won't even bother giving comp a chance, so why the hell are you even in here? We're trying to discuss ETC comp vs OTHER comp systems.

Bloodknight
13-02-2012, 15:04
BTW, ive been playing warhammer for almost two decades

Doesn't mean a lot. In fact, those guys who think that being a long-time player somehow is bound to make them good tend to be the worst type of noob of all because they do not take into account that their personal group just may not be that good. I used to be one of those, too. I used to think I was great at CBT because I could beat all my friends effortlessly...then I started playing internationally. 20 years of experience, worth nothing, noob level skill, hard learning curve.

In my - of course anecdotal - experience in a couple of game systems that I've played competitively (mostly CBT, 40K and WHF due to lack of interest in practising not so much) over the last ~20 years the people most against comp tend to be guys who (several picks possible) a) don't understand how probabilities work or units synergize b) blame their losses on dice regardless of how they played, but on the other hand all their wins are their own awesomeness, c) get to their mid-field tournament placements by outcheesing noobs. I used to be one of those guys. Always against comping because I thought my skills at list building and cheesing gave me an edge. It didn't, it made me a worse player than I could have been.

That said, the ETC pack seems to be quite tame compared to what I'm used to seeing in most WHF tournament packs.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 15:06
Dammit guys, move your little squabble over to the RELEVANT thread. Ramulots, you won't even bother giving comp a chance, so why the hell are you even in here? We're trying to discuss ETC comp vs OTHER comp systems.

I did chime in on the comp system itself but that post was mostly ignored. The ETC seems very biased against certain armies and any limiting of models in a unit needs to be dome with more care than the broad stroke of no more than 40/unit. THere needs to be some reasoning behinde it like what power jump happens when I add in that 41st model? if the ETC people cannot explain why 40 is acceptable and 41 is not then they should admit its all arbitrary bias and nothing to do with ballance.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 15:07
double post

IcedCrow
13-02-2012, 15:19
Doesn't mean a lot. In fact, those guys who think that being a long-time player somehow is bound to make them good tend to be the worst type of noob of all because they do not take into account that their personal group just may not be that good. I used to be one of those, too. I used to think I was great at CBT because I could beat all my friends effortlessly...then I started playing internationally. 20 years of experience, worth nothing, noob level skill, hard learning curve.

In my - of course anecdotal - experience in a couple of game systems that I've played competitively (mostly CBT, 40K and WHF due to lack of interest in practising not so much) over the last ~20 years the people most against comp tend to be guys who (several picks possible) a) don't understand how probabilities work or units synergize b) blame their losses on dice regardless of how they played, but on the other hand all their wins are their own awesomeness, c) get to their mid-field tournament placements by outcheesing noobs. I used to be one of those guys. Always against comping because I thought my skills at list building and cheesing gave me an edge. It didn't, it made me a worse player than I could have been.

That said, the ETC pack seems to be quite tame compared to what I'm used to seeing in most WHF tournament packs.

Good post Bloodknight. I come from a similar background. Back in my competitive days I found that I thought myself a pretty good player because in my small pond I placed high often based on knowing how to mathematically break my army with cheese in an unbalanced environment.

I found that when my crutches were kicked away that I was an average player at best. At first this was kind of offputting to me, and I also blamed dice and not my own issues/mistakes for losing. Then I realized I was an average player at best and started learning how to do well with sub-par army lists, which is why today I prefer comp... I think if a player can play and place high in a variety of environments (comp, uncomp, super cheese ard boyz, etc) then that is a sign that they are adaptable and good players.

Gaming an unbalanced system in a competitive environment is not enjoyable to me, because it's almost like coming to a chess tournament and playing games where I have a lot of queens to start out with and my opponent does not. I wouldn't win based on my own skill, rather I would win because I learned that queens are the best and I maxed out how many queens I could take and overpowered my opponent that way.

That being said, this thread is going off the rails into comp/no comp arguments and is dangerously close to being lost into the void.

I think ETC is a good template to go off of. I'm interested to see the final results of their comp.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 15:20
Doesn't mean a lot. In fact, those guys who think that being a long-time player somehow is bound to make them good tend to be the worst type of noob of all because they do not take into account that their personal group just may not be that good. I used to be one of those, too. I used to think I was great at CBT because I could beat all my friends effortlessly...then I started playing internationally. 20 years of experience, worth nothing, noob level skill, hard learning curve.

Learn to read, I made no such claim. I wrote I've been playing long enough to have played both comp and warhammer. I made no claim as to my skill level or play style.


In my - of course anecdotal - experience in a couple of game systems that I've played competitively (mostly CBT, 40K and WHF due to lack of interest in practising not so much) over the last ~20 years the people most against comp tend to be guys who (several picks possible) a) don't understand how probabilities work or units synergize b) blame their losses on dice regardless of how they played, but on the other hand all their wins are their own awesomeness, c) get to their mid-field tournament placements by outcheesing noobs. I used to be one of those guys. Always against comping because I thought my skills at list building and cheesing gave me an edge. It didn't, it made me a worse player than I could have been.

That said, the ETC pack seems to be quite tame compared to what I'm used to seeing in most WHF tournament packs.

To tackle these points in order

A- Its people on the side of comp that think limmiting choice gives you more options, that right there should tell you who has a grasp on probabillities and synergy.

B- It's funny because there seem to be many of those players no matter what game or style of play.

C- So you're the judge of who is cheese and who is a noob, glad of have met the authority on such matters.

Ronin[XiC]
13-02-2012, 16:08
@Duke
A: Limiting the OVERPOWERED stuff gives you mores VALID options. Removing the mandatory SirenSong from the Deamons book make all the other gifts worthwhile. With the Siren you have to use it to get the best out of your army.

And the ETCguys aren't your random gw-store noobies. They are winners of hundreds of tournaments in different countries and playstiles. They don't "hate" on armies, they see the problems in 2 or 3 armies being way to strong compared to the rest.

But you'll never understand that because you'll never play outside of your limited playground/area. Have you ever played in a differnet country?

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 16:31
;6087145']

And the ETCguys aren't your random gw-store noobies. They are winners of hundreds of tournaments in different countries and playstiles. They don't "hate" on armies, they see the problems in 2 or 3 armies being way to strong compared to the rest.

But you'll never understand that because you'll never play outside of your limited playground/area. Have you ever played in a differnet country?

It's like you know me...lol. Or not?

I have traveled to LA, Vegas, St. louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Charlotte NC, and Toronto in one road trip just to play warhammer(40k and WHFB) in 2004. It was a great experience. But even if I hadnt ever left my house, the pretentiousness to assume some stance of superiority based upon how far you've gone to play makes you sound like an elitest to me. Don't tell me, but I'm guessing you've gone from like germany to france and thought you were jetsetting...lol

Cambion Daystar
13-02-2012, 16:44
@ Duke Ramulots Yes you don't like comp, we get it. Now please get over it and comment on the contents of the ruleset like the opening poster requested, or open your own thread to whine whether or not comp is needed.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 16:45
@ Duke Ramulots Yes you don't like comp, we get it. Now please get over it and comment on the contents of the ruleset like the opening poster requested, or open your own thread to whine whether or not comp is needed.

I have, it seems noone knows how to read those posts though and instead only focus on the others... stay on topic people...lol

Adelie
13-02-2012, 17:53
I have a questions regarding this comp system, it seems to me that it makes a Beastmen ambush army impossible as it limits to 3 identical core choices. This limits the Beastmen to one ambushing unit. I don't see how limiting the choices of a less powerful army book make this a more competitive system. Honestly, it looks like they decided Beastmen were hopeless, gave up, spotted them some pity points, and moved on in the comping system.

Second question, has there ever been a justification for empire being limited to one master engineer? I could understand three or even two, but making it a 0-1 choice? Empire relies on either accurate artillery fire to soften targets or you just force them to always take the Steam Tank / War Alter route. Again, it looks like they are limiting choices, forcing each race down to predictable competitive lists rather than allowing any creativity in the army. I don't see how this is good for the game.

Disclaimer, I don't play in the ETC and am not good enough to even if I wanted, but I have a interest because our local GT TO basically copy pasted the ETC comp system for the tournament last year, (and coincidentally didn't fill for the first time in a while).

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 19:05
Alright Duke. In an effort to bring this back on topic. Why don't you tell us how you'd break the system. What would you bring with your best hypothetical "favoured" army that wouldn't be beatable by other armies under this system?

Drongol
13-02-2012, 19:17
Alright Duke. In an effort to bring this back on topic. Why don't you tell us how you'd break the system. What would you bring with your best hypothetical "favoured" army that wouldn't be beatable by other armies under this system?

In fairness, I am not Duke Ramulots, but it really does seem as though the "standard" Dwarf tournament list would do pretty well here. In more fairness, work has blocked the link to the restrictions, so I'm mostly working off memory here, but a few big blocks of GW-wielding Warriors with some Hammerers and 5 war machines should be a pretty good start.

Or, alternatively, with the OnG restrictions lifted it's possible to create a mega-horde of Night Goblins with short bows and the poison BSB, which would be able to put a hurt on just about anything out there. No restrictions on short bows, yes? 100 shots with poison should put a crimp in most people, and if you're sitting back at 18" or so, you're not in much risk of being charged. Throw in a general bunker, some fanatics and manglers, rock lobbas and chariots and wolf riders and you've got a fairly solid list, I would say. Heck, I'd even put a BO in the NG unit just to keep it largely immune to animosity. With the maximum 3 Night Goblin Shamans, you're going to get the poisoned attacks spell and that just makes things even worse.

Heck, it may be possible to run that alongside a SO Big'Un horde or suchlike for nasty combat potential--I'd have to run the numbers this evening--but I'm really thinking that the relaxation of standard on OnG may come back to bite them in the butt in a big way.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 19:22
I think you might have a point about Dwarfs. I played a tournament under similar restrictions and that was indeed won by a Dwarf player. Although that tournament did comp out all the nasty spells like Psun and Pit. 5 dice max would really help dwarfs too.

The question is would either of these lists be overpowered against "traditional" cheese armies like Skaven under their ETC restrictions or merely competitive against them?

Drongol
13-02-2012, 19:31
The question is would either of these lists be overpowered against "traditional" cheese armies like Skaven under their ETC restrictions or merely competitive against them?

The real issue there is whether or not you think Dwarfs can compete with Skaven without comp. In my opinion, yes, they most certainly can, and a partial weakening of the Skaven list for no real appreciable change for Dwarfs makes that match up even better for the short bearded guys.

With the OnG "gimmick" list, it's not something I'd ever really think of taking in a normal game (okay, I admit, I've thought about taking it, but not seriously), but it takes advantage of all the restrictions piled upon everyone else--nothing is going to outshoot an OnG list because it's all shortbows, hitting on a 6 doesn't matter if you're auto-wounding, the big-unit-killing spells are watered down, and 100 Night Goblins are going to be steadfast pretty much forever against all the smaller units out there. It's certainly not a list I would expect to see outside of the fact that it snakes around all the "normal" ETCHammer restrictions.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 19:31
I think with the model restriction lifted for orcs n goblins they can out skaven the skaven. Whats the point in running a horde that cant run hordes?

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 19:56
The real issue there is whether or not you think Dwarfs can compete with Skaven without comp. In my opinion, yes, they most certainly can, and a partial weakening of the Skaven list for no real appreciable change for Dwarfs makes that match up even better for the short bearded guys.
Yeah I think Dwarfs have an issue without comp. I saw plenty of Skaven armies at the Ard Boyz this year. I didn't see any Dwarfs past the first round. Same last year. I don't think they can keep up with Daemons or Skaven in zero comp conditions, for whatever reason.


With the OnG "gimmick" list, it's not something I'd ever really think of taking in a normal game (okay, I admit, I've thought about taking it, but not seriously), but it takes advantage of all the restrictions piled upon everyone else--nothing is going to outshoot an OnG list because it's all shortbows, hitting on a 6 doesn't matter if you're auto-wounding, the big-unit-killing spells are watered down, and 100 Night Goblins are going to be steadfast pretty much forever against all the smaller units out there. It's certainly not a list I would expect to see outside of the fact that it snakes around all the "normal" ETCHammer restrictions.
Apart from evading the normal restrictions, is it all that? This is surely do-able in zero comp conditions yet I've never seen it fielded. I don't see a huge number of Orc-n-Gob armies though. I don't know it would hold up well, most competent combat units would rip it apart (okay, it might take a while), starting with the BSB who is super-vulnerable. A good support unit no doubt and similar to the Khalida build but the question is whether you have enough in the rest of the army to hold it down.


I think with the model restriction lifted for orcs n goblins they can out skaven the skaven. Whats the point in running a horde that cant run hordes?
40 is still a respectable number and you can still have a lot of rats on the table. I'm not quite sure why Orcs-n-Gobs get the specific restriction lifted but I know why Skaven don't - because of extremely effective skaven builds based on giant blocks.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 20:03
You dont see it done in warhammer because someone would just 6 dice that gobbo unit off the table. No need for comp, common sense and an understanding of the roeshambo style of the game keeps it ballanced.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 20:14
I'm not sure why that's a good thing. Playing a game where the opponent 6-dices a given uber-spell every turn isn't very tactical or fun. I played a zero comp game against a good friend of mine in preparation for a zero comp tournament next weekend. I think he threw 4 purple suns through my ogres, all six-diced. He tabled me - less than 10 of my models died from anything other than purple sun damage. Everything died, small units and single models as well as my deathstar.

I don't see units like that extreme gobbo one as a real threat and I don't think it in any way require the uber spells at all. I played in a tournament that disallowed all these spells and deathstars did not run rampant.

Phazael
13-02-2012, 20:26
Whats more strategic? Using a small unit to go in and assasinate that wizard or being completely certain you will be able to stop the one spell you want to every turn, unless the other guy randomly IFs it? And quite frankly, wizards, especially lord level ones, cost a ton of points, generally at least the equivalent of three war machines. They SHOULD swing the game, certainly as much as a pair of cannons and a runed up stonethrower do.

The real Rock Paper Scissors of WH (not ECT Cripple Hammer) is Kill Spells > Deathstars > MSU and ECT is essentially hobbling the first two in its restrictions, turning the whole thing into a coinflip of gunline vs MSU. If I gambled I would bet money that this year (like every other year) nearly all the armies look the same within their own books.

PS- If you died to Purple Sun, its because you did not bring the Hellheart and/or runemaw, not (nessecarily) because your friend was a douche.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 20:46
I never said my friend was a douche, I need to establish exactly where the weaknesses in my army are and I wouldn't have had him do anything but try to win as well as he could. As it happened I did have the Hellheart and the Rune Maw (the Rune Maw doesn't work on Purple Sun btw) and assassinating the wizard was difficult in the exact situation. The hellheart is random, however, and unless you can get it within 5" of the enemy wizards it can simply fail outright. Yes, a level 4 costs a lot of points. This one killed around 2000 points by himself. There are ways I can deal with it, it is possible to play zero comp, but when one model can kill your whole army, it distorts tactical play. I like playing zero comp from time to time - indeed, other than Grand Tournaments, I usually play zero comp - but I don't find it at all as balanced as you make out. Specifically my army composition is heavily constrained if I want to bring Ogres at all and indeed bringing my Daemons would have been a much better bet overall.

I understand the rock-paper-scissors mechanic and it sucks. I don't want to spend three hours per round of rock-paper-scissors. That's not Warhammer to me. And please don't call it CrippleHammer, that's disrespectful. It's frankly not the most extreme comp I've seen at all. I disagree, I find that armies look much more uniform without comp although I do prefer comp score systems to ones that just restrict your options.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of ETC, but it seems reasonable enough to me. I don't see any uber-builds that will dominate right off the bat. I agree that Dwarfs got off very lightly but there are certainly builds that will give them a good run for their money, not least Ogres.

IcedCrow
13-02-2012, 20:47
I didn't think runemaw worked against purple sun, because the spell is not cast at the unit with the runemaw, rather its a template that goes over them.

The answer to ogres I have found has often been purple sun, etc...

Ronin[XiC]
13-02-2012, 21:00
The real Rock Paper Scissors of WH (not ECT Cripple Hammer) is Kill Spells > Deathstars > MSU and ECT is essentially hobbling the first two in its restrictions, turning the whole thing into a coinflip of gunline vs MSU. If I gambled I would bet money that this year (like every other year) nearly all the armies look the same within their own books.



No Deathstars = no need for uberspells. MSU is not hardcountered by Deathstars. One Deathstar will never see a single worthy fight against a MSU army and it's supporting troops will die.

All armies in no comp also look the same all the time...

And = throwing 6 dice is neither strategic nor fun when it's done all the time.

Drongol
13-02-2012, 21:20
;6087711']No Deathstars = no need for uberspells. MSU is not hardcountered by Deathstars. One Deathstar will never see a single worthy fight against a MSU army and it's supporting troops will die.

This is largely incorrect unless there's a massive divide in player skill. Nonetheless, deathstars are alive and well in ETCHammer, they just don't have quite so many ablative wounds to throw around.

Consider 9 Ironguts (or however many you can get for the points) joined by a Slaughtermaster and 2 Firebellies. This unit will plow through most opponents without breaking a sweat and there's very little that can genuinely be done to counter it. It's a death star. It's just not a horde. And it works well for ETCHammer.

The Low King
13-02-2012, 21:22
;6087711']No Deathstars = no need for uberspells. MSU is not hardcountered by Deathstars. One Deathstar will never see a single worthy fight against a MSU army and it's supporting troops will die.

All armies in no comp also look the same all the time...

And = throwing 6 dice is neither strategic nor fun when it's done all the time.

Same arguments from both sides, can be summed up as:

Non-Comp side

Rock paper scissors counters
Magic not too powerful
Comp limits options
Comp is bias

Comp side

All lists in non-comp are the same
magic and deathstars are too powerful
Comp increases viable options
Comp is based on experience


LI; chances of IF on 6 dice is 26%, that means getting 4 IFs in a game is very lucky.
The chances of IF on 5 dice is 20%, not much difference
The chances on 4 dice is 13%

you can still throw 5 dice at a spell with ETC comp for the same effect.


As pointed out, you can almost take the Dwarf (non-comp) tounament list in this Comp, all you need to do is reduce a unit of hammerers from 40 to about 30. Possibly replace the hammerers with a challenge thane.
On the other hand, many fluffy lists (such as a Strollaz list) cant be taken.

Not speaking for comp in general but i think this ETC reduces variation.

Phazael
13-02-2012, 21:27
Of course the MSU army will not score one VP against a deathstar army and will generally lose at least 100 points through magic/shooting/sacrificial guys tossed under the bus. Deathstar armies do not need to have vulnerable support units. See VC, Skaven, DE, Daemons, Lizardmen, and Warriors of Chaos for excellent examples of that.

And no comp environments do not make all armies look the same, so don't even go there like you heard it on Fox News... The stuff that always happens in no comp environments is this: Daemons always take Kairos, HE always take Teclis, and DE always take as many Hydras as they can. DE already take as many Hydras as they can, so really only two armies have auto includes in a compless format than in a comped one. I've been to uncomped events a lot on both ends of the country and I can tell you from personal experience that you see way more variation in the army setups in an uncomped environment. In ECT style environments, everyone just takes everything they can get away with. You can argue it all you want, but looking at the Hard Boyz finals from the last two years (and Blobs Park, Throne of Skullz, and our own SoCal Events that ran with no comp) and looking at the lists from the last couple of years of ECT provides all the evidence I need to back up my statement. Hell, blobs park which was comp free, minus three items and three SCs, and had no soft scores was won by an Orc and Goblin list this past year.

That is actually my biggest beef about the ECTs list, aside from the Skaven/Dwarf/HE love, is that it actually kills diversity in army builds. They might as well just make prefab armies and make people play them at the event.

Snake1311
13-02-2012, 21:28
Whats more strategic? Using a small unit to go in and assasinate that wizard or being completely certain you will be able to stop the one spell you want to every turn, unless the other guy randomly IFs it? And quite frankly, wizards, especially lord level ones, cost a ton of points, generally at least the equivalent of three war machines. They SHOULD swing the game, certainly as much as a pair of cannons and a runed up stonethrower do.

Erm, no. The three abovementioned warmachines add up to over 400 pts, matched only by the most tooled up chaos and vampire casters. And on top of that, lvl 4 wizards provide defensive capabilities in +4 to dispel and 1/6 DD per turn average. Magic is way too cost effective, the ETC comp nerfs it, and people will STILL being a lvl 4 caster in 90% of cases.

And FYI, dwarfs barely compete with Skaven in comped environments; in uncomped the matchup is a joke.

Skaven aren't allowed to build ridiculously giant blocks because of their slaves. Herpderp, 400 slaves in one block, on a rerollable ld 10 and the seer/bsb unreachable behind them. some armies barely have that many attacks in their army over 6 turns.

I don't know why you all assume dwarfs got off that lightly. The warmachine + shot cap keeps gunlines in check just as last year, and now the Anvil-type lists have got a restriction on them as well. The 5 dice cap will help with dispelling, but then Book of Hoeth is allowed this year, which is one of the few army-wide hard counters in the whole comp. Overall, I doubt they'd perform noticably better than last year, where they were spot on the average.

I've played against the NG poison superunit (80ish of them anyway) and while its extremely annoying I wouldn't call it gamebreaking. They have to walk somewhere to get in position, the output isn't THAT brutal considering that even if its poison its only S3 so you get your armour, the wide footprint messes with the O&G army's overall deployment (which is strained enough already due to the large amount of chaff and the absolute need to be inside the Ld bubble), and a unit of knights can engage them and hold them for quite some time. Not to menton that if you do charge them, they are often not very deep in order to maximize shots (so maybe no steadfast), have an expensive undefended BSB in the front rank, and due to being very long do not guarantee a successful countercharge to your flank.
Don't get me wrong, they are a POWERFUL pick, but nearly every army brings heavy cavalry nowdays (after people got over the initial whine when 8th came out and realised cav is still awesome).


The Kill Spells -> deathstars thing is fine in theory, until you get to the little fact that two of the strongest three spells target Initiative, which completely screws up game balance between armies - while you can wipe lizzies, ogres, and dwarfs out with a single well placed purple sun, the chosen deathstar doesn't give two sh*ts about it.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 21:33
I'm not sure why that's a good thing. Playing a game where the opponent 6-dices a given uber-spell every turn isn't very tactical or fun. I played a zero comp game against a good friend of mine in preparation for a zero comp tournament next weekend. I think he threw 4 purple suns through my ogres, all six-diced. He tabled me - less than 10 of my models died from anything other than purple sun damage. Everything died, small units and single models as well as my deathstar.

I don't see units like that extreme gobbo one as a real threat and I don't think it in any way require the uber spells at all. I played in a tournament that disallowed all these spells and deathstars did not run rampant.

Not to sound like a jerk but why did you not just kill the wizard? If you tried and failed, isn't that a problem with your own tactics and or overall strategy?

As for saying using purple sun isn't tactical, the ease and effectiveness are not what is rated by tactics. Being tactical is using a tool propperly(tactically) and the propper tactic to employ with purple sun is cast it and kill the opponent. Your friends play was indeed tactical.

Phazael
13-02-2012, 21:38
PS- also, this IS Cripplehammer. Its playing like its an edition ago. Instead of people working out how to counter things, they get to play with a net. Its the warhammer equivalent of the sheltered guy who is in his thirties and still living with his mom because she made sure he never had to deal with the real world.

Instead of making people not play like idiots and stagger MSU their armies, we will just make it so you can always dispell Dwellers/Gateway/Insert Random Source of ******** here.
Instead of making people work out how to balance a list so that one unkillable dreadlord stuffs their entire character point denial boat, we will just nix that.
Instead of letting people figure out how to whittle Daemons with a balanced approach, lets cater to their six year old ******** by nerfing the crap out of them harder.
Instead of making people learn how to take and properly use chaffe units to contain chosenstar and similar units, lets just nix those too.

The super sekrit council of ECT is just slapping training wheels onto the game and cultivating weakness in the player base. Other areas have already worked this stuff out and even the compier tourneys in those regions much more wide open than this list. I am actually a pro comp person, when its done selectively and in small doses, but good lord this hamhanded attempt to rebalance the game is worse than no comp at all. And seriously, Skaven are the second best army in the entire game right now and they have the lightest restrictions of anyone other than Bretts?

Phazael
13-02-2012, 21:39
Double Post

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 21:43
Erm, no. The three abovementioned warmachines add up to over 400 pts, matched only by the most tooled up chaos and vampire casters. And on top of that, lvl 4 wizards provide defensive capabilities in +4 to dispel and 1/6 DD per turn average. Magic is way too cost effective, the ETC comp nerfs it, and people will STILL being a lvl 4 caster in 90% of cases.

And FYI, dwarfs barely compete with Skaven in comped environments; in uncomped the matchup is a joke.

Skaven aren't allowed to build ridiculously giant blocks because of their slaves. Herpderp, 400 slaves in one block, on a rerollable ld 10 and the seer/bsb unreachable behind them. some armies barely have that many attacks in their army over 6 turns.

I don't know why you all assume dwarfs got off that lightly. The warmachine + shot cap keeps gunlines in check just as last year, and now the Anvil-type lists have got a restriction on them as well. The 5 dice cap will help with dispelling, but then Book of Hoeth is allowed this year, which is one of the few army-wide hard counters in the whole comp. Overall, I doubt they'd perform noticably better than last year, where they were spot on the average.

I've played against the NG poison superunit (80ish of them anyway) and while its extremely annoying I wouldn't call it gamebreaking. They have to walk somewhere to get in position, the output isn't THAT brutal considering that even if its poison its only S3 so you get your armour, the wide footprint messes with the O&G army's overall deployment (which is strained enough already due to the large amount of chaff and the absolute need to be inside the Ld bubble), and a unit of knights can engage them and hold them for quite some time. Not to menton that if you do charge them, they are often not very deep in order to maximize shots (so maybe no steadfast), have an expensive undefended BSB in the front rank, and due to being very long do not guarantee a successful countercharge to your flank.
Don't get me wrong, they are a POWERFUL pick, but nearly every army brings heavy cavalry nowdays (after people got over the initial whine when 8th came out and realised cav is still awesome).


The Kill Spells -> deathstars thing is fine in theory, until you get to the little fact that two of the strongest three spells target Initiative, which completely screws up game balance between armies - while you can wipe lizzies, ogres, and dwarfs out with a single well placed purple sun, the chosen deathstar doesn't give two sh*ts about it.

All of your examples are like theyre in a vaccume instead of a battlefield. If someone fields the goblin poisonstar theyre going to hand of gork it to wherever it needs to be. As well as your tired old skavenslaves argument, I beg my skaven opponents to give me huge blocks of slaves to kill. They dont get strength in numbers while disrupted and at best will be rerollable 7 ld and thats only if you havnt killed their characters first like you should.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 21:47
Not to sound like a jerk but why did you not just kill the wizard? If you tried and failed, isn't that a problem with your own tactics and or overall strategy?

As for saying using purple sun isn't tactical, the ease and effectiveness are not what is rated by tactics. Being tactical is using a tool propperly(tactically) and the propper tactic to employ with purple sun is cast it and kill the opponent. Your friends play was indeed tactical.

Whether or not I was able to kill a 300 point model before it destroyed 2000 points of my army is not the point.

The point is that I should have to kill a 300 point model before it singlehandedly wiped out my army is not what I'd consider what the game should be about.

Duke Ramulots
13-02-2012, 21:51
The game is about powerfull mages being able to lay waste to enemy armies. That is the difference between a fantasy miniatures war game and a historical one. Those same 300 point models can be killed by three peasant bowmen for 18 points in one round, should peasant bowmen be nerfed because they have an optimal matchup on the table or should people just not run an unprotected mage in fromt of enemy archers?

Phazael
13-02-2012, 21:53
Erm, no. The three abovementioned warmachines add up to over 400 pts, matched only by the most tooled up chaos and vampire casters. And on top of that, lvl 4 wizards provide defensive capabilities in +4 to dispel and 1/6 DD per turn average. Magic is way too cost effective, the ETC comp nerfs it, and people will STILL being a lvl 4 caster in 90% of cases.

And FYI, dwarfs barely compete with Skaven in comped environments; in uncomped the matchup is a joke.

Two Dwarven Cannons and a Grudge with two Pen Runes and Accuracy cost 325. Two cannons and a Flame Cannon is less expensive. Empire can bring two mortars and two cannons for 350. The average cost of a fully geared L4 with access to the book lores is 300 and change; much more if he is a chaos, lizard, or Ogre L4. What do you think is going to cause more problems for 99% of the armies out there? Which of those is more reliable at its job?

And if I agree to your premise that Skaven are better than Dwarves in uncomped environments (a seperate debatable issue), how precisely does the ECT change that when neither army loses anything from its standard tournament builds, outside of limit unit caps? The Skaven still have the decisive item in this contest (storm banner) and can still pack in two WLCs and an Abomb. Even if your initial premise is accurate, the ECT does not actually address it.

Phazael
13-02-2012, 21:55
Inquisitor-

Have to ask again. Did you take the hellheart? Did you have Ironblasters? Blaming the system in place when your book has the tools to address what rooked you does not strengthen the core argument for ECT comp here.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2012, 22:13
Inquisitor-

Have to ask again. Did you take the hellheart? Did you have Ironblasters? Blaming the system in place when your book has the tools to address what rooked you does not strengthen the core argument for ECT comp here.

Yes, I had the hellheart. It's a bit complicated so I left it out, but here's the full story.

Originally, at the critical game point, I needed a "4" on the hellheart roll to hit all his wizards (I got as close as I could but his wizards started running for the hills). He had three round a herdstone and his level 4. I got my 4 and his wizards blew up or similarly nasty things happened. It nuked his magic phase, my units easily crushed his and he conceded shortly afterwards.

With not quite enough time for another game but not wanting to pack up so early either, I said, I was lucky to get that 4+ on the hellheart. Let's re-rack at the start of your magic phase, put all your figs back and pretend I rolled a 1 on the hellheart. He reduced my deathstar's initiative (yes, through the Rune Maw) and purple-sunned them (not Irresistibly but I had no Dispel Scroll, I can typically only fit two of the hellheart, rune maw and dispel scroll without buying another hero, both in money and points). We had a good, satisfying game - it was pretty close, my tyrant almost ended the game on a huge pile of gor. But, looking back, almost everything of mine died to purple sun.

So the game came down to a 4+ roll on the hellheart. That's not what I want from a game. With herdstone and hellheart comped in ETC, I think there's less chance of that happening. The point is really not whether my opponent or I played well or not - really you'd need a full batrep to even have an opinion on the matter - but 6-dicing an enemy army away does work.

Phazael
13-02-2012, 23:20
Or, if he had a more balanced approach and spread his wizards out, he would not have gotten dorked as hard by the heart.

Or, if he still had no magic phase to work with (Hellheart and 6 dice both out of play) you still bulldoze him in HtH, so no change in the initial outcome.

Lets assume this sort of thing is in fact a problem with the game. If the ECT restrictions just let you bulldoze him the same as if you had the hard counter to PSun, what exactly is the change for?

Lordy
14-02-2012, 00:14
I don't know why you even reply to them Inquisitor, they're like those annoying kids in school that wont play unless they get their own way.

Comp is here for the long hall, accept it, all the whining in the world isn't going to change it.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 02:17
You must have missed the part where I said I was for comp, just not the tailored we wish we were still playing pre Daemon 7th edition ECT checklist.

Their obvious personal biases towards certain armies aside, the ECT simply cannot possibly be any more balanced than basic warhammer because the game changes too often (new book every three months) and it does not consider context at all. For example, two hydras in a DE army with no magic, shooting, or pendant is hardly the same as in an army with the Shadow caster and unkillable peg lord. So a mageless monster army themed around cold one knights, dark riders, and hydras is really mild, but gets flagged all over the place in this system. My chariot themed beastmen army is absolutely terrible, but its also completely ECT illegal, despite no herdstone and over half the army being core units. I have seen and personally taken both of those armies to GTs, along with a Brett list that would not have made the cut, despite the ultra light restrictions on Bretts. Tell me again where this checklist promotes diversity?

The other part is where the ECT guys tout how they are the Warhammer elite and this whole thing is only for their event and everyone claims its the most competitive event on the planet. So if every team has access to the same armies and all the same options and this list is only meant for this one single event, why even bother restricting anything? If all teams have the same options, it does not matter what those options are, because by the purest definitions, all teams are equally matched. Why does it matter if there is a DE Lord of Unkillable Cockblocking if every team gets one to use? Wouldn't the most competitive event give all players every option from which to construct their teams? If you remove the dubious premise that giving two teams a different quantity of the same weapony somehow alters the balance of the game, you have to ask why bother with a comp list for an event with no soft scores. The easy answer is that they want to rewrite the game injecting their personal army bias into it and promote this view by branding it the most competitive tournament in the universe, regardless of whether that subjective statement can be verified or not. There are comp systems that have been around longer than the ECT that do not have an agenda and have had more diverse winners to their events.

And for the record, the American Throne of Skulls finals, which had absolutely no comp restrictions of any kind, was won by a dwarf who went 4-1. Despite the massive Teclis fest and double hydra bonanza, there was also a wood elf player who went 4-1. So, yeah, obviously people can work out how to beat the power armies from time to time.

Duke Ramulots
14-02-2012, 02:29
Lordy, saying the other side of the argument is whinning is rather pathetic.

tmarichards
14-02-2012, 08:08
It's incredibly depressing that what was meant to start off as an objective discussion on a rulespack has devolved into this. Nicely done chaps, I hope you're proud of yourselves. Now please get out of the thread so that it can be discussed properly without dozens of tape measure posts.

Echunia
14-02-2012, 08:33
It's incredibly depressing that what was meant to start off as an objective discussion on a rulespack has devolved into this. Nicely done chaps, I hope you're proud of yourselves. Now please get out of the thread so that it can be discussed properly without dozens of tape measure posts.

Yeah... I had a small hope that my disclaimers would work. It did for the first page at least : D.

Anyway I'd like to address a few things people have brought up (there's to many and to long posts to quote).

1 - I hear "just assasinate his wizard" being banded around a whole lot. Well, how exactly would you do that? A good opponent isn't going to let you charge whilly nilly into his bunker. With TLoS there's no reason you shouldn't have a good unit in front of the bunker protecting the unit in question. If he wants to cast purple sun he can just move the unit out of the way and the damage will have been done.

2 - I think the reason you see more different armies in the uncomped tournaments than in the ETC is this: The playing field is wider. In an uncomped tournament you have a large range of people only some of which are looking to compete with the best lists. Where as in the ETC a lot of work goes in by every team to find the optimal builds. There is almost exclusively competitive players who all look for the optimum builds in about a year before the event. With that much planning they are bound to end up with similar builds.

Any way, was there a restriction on the O&G chariots? If not there could be a merit for a chaff-tastic O&G list? Maybe it'll loose to many points thou... Also for people calling the NG poison death star a gimmick, from what I've heard it features in most competitive O&G lists in the UK. A more scaled down version, maybe 60 goblins instead of 100+ but still.

I wonder what people think about the Bell seer vs the double seer? Which one would be the best one in an ETC environment?

Ratbeast
14-02-2012, 08:34
What so good about gutter runners for them to need a restriction....

Doommasters
14-02-2012, 09:33
I just hope when all the 8th books come out there is no need for any of this, always the same arguments every time. Maybe only 24 months if GW does a good job and we might have some form of balance across the board.

tmarichards
14-02-2012, 09:40
What so good about gutter runners for them to need a restriction....

It's the Skirmishing poison and the ability to come on from behind people. Without a couple of magic missiles they're pretty hard to deal with.

They're not that special when you take a couple of units of 7 of them, but 3 units of 15 will roll over some armies all by themselves.

Snake1311
14-02-2012, 09:45
Two Dwarven Cannons and a Grudge with two Pen Runes and Accuracy cost 325. Two cannons and a Flame Cannon is less expensive. Empire can bring two mortars and two cannons for 350. The average cost of a fully geared L4 with access to the book lores is 300 and change; much more if he is a chaos, lizard, or Ogre L4. What do you think is going to cause more problems for 99% of the armies out there? Which of those is more reliable at its job?

And if I agree to your premise that Skaven are better than Dwarves in uncomped environments (a seperate debatable issue), how precisely does the ECT change that when neither army loses anything from its standard tournament builds, outside of limit unit caps? The Skaven still have the decisive item in this contest (storm banner) and can still pack in two WLCs and an Abomb. Even if your initial premise is accurate, the ECT does not actually address it.

Erm, no? Even if you aren't counting the runes of forging (???) and no flaming anywhere, its still more than 325. The standard setup for those 3 warmachines comes to 410pts if you don't include engineers. Or are you comparing unequipped machines to a FULLY equipped lord? Either both are on basic costs, or both are with their optimal equipment; in either case the machines are more expensive (bar VERY FEW exceptions, like a decked out Slaan), easier to kill, and with (arguably) less impact on the game. And no defense bonus from them.

Skaven rares are 0-1 I believe, so no two WLCs, and more importantly, no two Abombs. Additionally, out of Storm Banner, Brass Orb and Doomrocket (all VERY painful to us) they can only select two. And since Dawi don't have multiattack units, with a cap of 40 skaven blocks might actually not be steadfast after a few rounds of combat. And gutter runners decimate warmachines with their poison and are incredibly difficult to deal with with an armybook with move-or-fire everything and no fast units. Pretty good list of reasons, no? I'm probably missing some more there and there.

Maybe you should actually read the comppack we are meant to be discussing before posting in here.

ihavetoomuchminis
14-02-2012, 09:55
Don't know if i or my opponents are being unlucky, but magic has managed to achieve nothing that broken in all my games. Game-changing yes, as it should be. Broken, i don't think so.

Snake1311
14-02-2012, 09:57
Also, this:

1D6 = 0%
2D6 = 1/36 = 2.7%
3D6 = 16/216 = 7.04%
4D6 = 171/1296 = 13.9%
5D6 = 1526/7776 =19.6%
6D6 = 12281/46656 = 26.3%
7D6 = 92436/279936 = 33.%
8D6 = 663991/1679616 = 39.5%
9D6 = 4608946/10077696 = 45.7%
10D6 = 31169301/60466176 = 51.5%
11D6 = 206547056/362797056 = 56.9%
12D6 = 1346704211/2176782336 = 61.9%

Yes, 19.6% chance of IF is still too damn high, meaning that if you spam the spell every turn you'll get it off on IF once on average, but still better than 26.3%. And the problem with not enough DD to match is when there is no IF is worse on 6 dice. And the chance of actually not reaching the casting value is nice - its good to have SOME detriment to just chucking as many dice as you can at your best spell every turn.

ewar
14-02-2012, 14:27
Their obvious personal biases towards certain armies aside, the ECT simply cannot possibly be any more balanced than basic warhammer because the game changes too often (new book every three months) and it does not consider context at all. For example, two hydras in a DE army with no magic, shooting, or pendant is hardly the same as in an army with the Shadow caster and unkillable peg lord. So a mageless monster army themed around cold one knights, dark riders, and hydras is really mild, but gets flagged all over the place in this system. My chariot themed beastmen army is absolutely terrible, but its also completely ECT illegal, despite no herdstone and over half the army being core units. I have seen and personally taken both of those armies to GTs, along with a Brett list that would not have made the cut, despite the ultra light restrictions on Bretts. Tell me again where this checklist promotes diversity?

The other part is where the ECT guys tout how they are the Warhammer elite and this whole thing is only for their event and everyone claims its the most competitive event on the planet. So if every team has access to the same armies and all the same options and this list is only meant for this one single event, why even bother restricting anything? If all teams have the same options, it does not matter what those options are, because by the purest definitions, all teams are equally matched. Why does it matter if there is a DE Lord of Unkillable Cockblocking if every team gets one to use? Wouldn't the most competitive event give all players every option from which to construct their teams? If you remove the dubious premise that giving two teams a different quantity of the same weapony somehow alters the balance of the game, you have to ask why bother with a comp list for an event with no soft scores. The easy answer is that they want to rewrite the game injecting their personal army bias into it and promote this view by branding it the most competitive tournament in the universe, regardless of whether that subjective statement can be verified or not. There are comp systems that have been around longer than the ECT that do not have an agenda and have had more diverse winners to their events.

And for the record, the American Throne of Skulls finals, which had absolutely no comp restrictions of any kind, was won by a dwarf who went 4-1. Despite the massive Teclis fest and double hydra bonanza, there was also a wood elf player who went 4-1. So, yeah, obviously people can work out how to beat the power armies from time to time.

I can't help but think it's the 'E' part that bugs you. We have throne of skulls in the UK as well and it was won by tomb kings last year. Do you wilfully ignore some of the posts on here? Let me try and break it down:
- no one in the ETC claims it to be for anything other than their own, very specific needs
- that is for a TEAM tournament, i.e. the restrictions are designed to counteract specific play styles which they have seen arise from their tournament format, such as armies playing not to lose, which is completely different from playing to win
- because of this they have come up with this comp, which is designed to stop players playing for a draw

Can you explain to me how a committee has personal bias? Why do you even care what they do, that you feel the need to so vociferously shout it down?

I don't like their comp, it's much too strict for my liking. But I'm happy for them if it works for them - pretending this is some sort of big manly contest and that ETC is 'breeding weakness' like some sort of fascist 30s propaganda is borderline offensive. Have you seen a room full of wargaming nerds before? Supermen, they ain't.

DaemonReign
14-02-2012, 14:29
Don't know if i or my opponents are being unlucky, but magic has managed to achieve nothing that broken in all my games. Game-changing yes, as it should be. Broken, i don't think so.

Same here.
8th Ed is as balanced as it'll ever be. Crunching numbers and listing percentages is not going to change that. People should just relax and play the game the way they want to. ETC seems to make quite alot of really narrow and biased assumptions about the game - and it leads to some rather confused stances taken by people it seems.

@Snake1311: I'm not interested in arguing with you. Really. But when you say "its good to have SOME detriment to just chucking as many dice as you can at your best spell every turn" I can't help wondering if you've ever actually played uncomped Warhammer. It's really only Dwarves/Empire that forces the opponant that adopt the all-or-nothing tactic, simply because you no longer have any superiority in Power Dice (over Dispel Dice). Other than that chucking 6 dice at some über-spell isn't necessarily a no-brainer, at all.

the Witch kings regent
14-02-2012, 16:09
all i see here is some people running a compitition that have changed the rule of Warhammer pretty much because they got stopped or wrecked by another army and didn't like it. its called tactics and if one army beats you, you learn and think of a way you could have beat it. everyone else does and they don't change the rules. in a team tournament you could simple mke it so your mgic selection and items count on both players. so only one of each item in each army.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 16:51
Erm, no? Even if you aren't counting the runes of forging (???) and no flaming anywhere, its still more than 325. The standard setup for those 3 warmachines comes to 410pts if you don't include engineers. Or are you comparing unequipped machines to a FULLY equipped lord? Either both are on basic costs, or both are with their optimal equipment; in either case the machines are more expensive (bar VERY FEW exceptions, like a decked out Slaan), easier to kill, and with (arguably) less impact on the game. And no defense bonus from them.

Skaven rares are 0-1 I believe, so no two WLCs, and more importantly, no two Abombs. Additionally, out of Storm Banner, Brass Orb and Doomrocket (all VERY painful to us) they can only select two. And since Dawi don't have multiattack units, with a cap of 40 skaven blocks might actually not be steadfast after a few rounds of combat. And gutter runners decimate warmachines with their poison and are incredibly difficult to deal with with an armybook with move-or-fire everything and no fast units. Pretty good list of reasons, no? I'm probably missing some more there and there.

Maybe you should actually read the comppack we are meant to be discussing before posting in here.

Your math skills are lacking. Two bare cannons and the stone thrower I described are exactly 325. I think comparing a fully geared wizard to a pair of cannons and a S5 rerolling stone thrower is indeed a fair comparison. Also, you don't need flaming if you have it elsehwere in the shooting phase, incidentally, and even then in their environment you do not need that much of it. Also, the packet has changed since this thread started, so forgive me if they broke down and added some more restriction to the Skaven and I did not catch it.

Ronin[XiC]
14-02-2012, 17:02
all i see here is some people running a compitition that have changed the rule of Warhammer pretty much because they got stopped or wrecked by another army and didn't like it. its called tactics and if one army beats you, you learn and think of a way you could have beat it. everyone else does and they don't change the rules. in a team tournament you could simple mke it so your mgic selection and items count on both players. so only one of each item in each army.

And you are so wrong it's not even funny anymore. I mean, you've no idea who the creators are but immediately think they are noobies.

Laughable!

Phazael
14-02-2012, 17:08
ps- The personal bias is rampant in that certain armies that are not really that powerful anymore (Daemons, primarily) without their special characters are still getting hammered on even more, while other armies that don't need the help (HE and Gunline Dwfs) or are in fact overpowered (Skaven) are completely given a pass. There are also certain armies that have had their major tournament elements directly clipped (including WE for some unfathomable reason) while others can basically play their lists as if this was an uncomped event (Dwarves, HE, and Skaven). Some of it is not bias, just incompetance. For example, they really hate Daemons and DE winning games, but do not seem to realize that their throwback to 7th ruleset is what is keeping those armies in a position of dominance in their format and if they stopped nut punching the magic phase that they would not be knocking a leg out from under their table and DoC would suddenly become a mid tier army like they are everywhere else Kairos is banned (ie everywhere not Hard Boyz).

Simply stated, their restriction list does not reflect the reality of army distrobution at the top of the winners brackets in the US tournament scene (comped or otherwise), which is not terribly different from the rest of the world. So either they are just tossing darts at a dart board to come up with some of these restrictions, or they are letting personal bias and internet whining affect what gets banned. Given human nature, I know which scenario I consider more likely.....

Ronin[XiC]
14-02-2012, 17:20
No, they are not tossing darts, they know what is going on. The US is one tiny part of the worldwide way to play Warhammer. You have a destinctive playstyle, so does the rest of the world has.
THey do NOT have any personal bias (WTF stop claiming that if you do not have any data to support it) and they do NOT play in the same league as "intenet whiners".

It's unbelievable how few arguments the uncomped side has. All they're doing is claiming a) the game is perfect b) comped is less balance than uncomped and c) people who play comped are worse than uncomped players.

Jind_Singh
14-02-2012, 17:41
Actually this is maybe the first time EVER I actually didn't vomit when I saw the ETC restrictions! They are, for the most part, ok - but they just handed the Orcs & Gobbos a massive golden handshake - no restrictions, no unit caps - life doesn't get better than that!!!!

I would love to attend this event and see what people do in such regulated environments - but overall the generic rulings seem ok - but will need to look in more detail about other armies specific restrictions.

Snake1311
14-02-2012, 17:57
Your math skills are lacking. Two bare cannons and the stone thrower I described are exactly 325. I think comparing a fully geared wizard to a pair of cannons and a S5 rerolling stone thrower is indeed a fair comparison. Also, you don't need flaming if you have it elsehwere in the shooting phase, incidentally, and even then in their environment you do not need that much of it. Also, the packet has changed since this thread started, so forgive me if they broke down and added some more restriction to the Skaven and I did not catch it.

No, they do not - S5 accurate GT and 2 barren cannons (retarded comparison btw) come to 335; and the fact that you refuse to admit you are wrong (TWICE) even when faced with costs written in an official army book is a telltale sign that you have no clue what you are talking about.

On top of that, not only has the 0-1 rares restriction been on Skaven since the second the pack was released (which was a few days before this thread), but that restriction was even in place last year, so its nothing new. You are CLEARLY just BSing now, since you are completely uninformed and obviously unable to read through neither comp packs nor army books.

Lord Inquisitor
14-02-2012, 18:03
Same arguments from both sides, can be summed up as:

Non-Comp side

Rock paper scissors counters
Magic not too powerful
Comp limits options
Comp is bias

Comp side

All lists in non-comp are the same
magic and deathstars are too powerful
Comp increases viable options
Comp is based on experience.
What? I don't think those are the arguments at all:

Anti-comp:
Comp is made by people who can't play proper warhammer and don't bother to learn how to deal with powerful things so ban them.

Pro-comp:
People who like zero comp don't play real warhammer and can't win without their deathstars and cheesy combos.

;)

Echunia
14-02-2012, 18:33
Actually this is maybe the first time EVER I actually didn't vomit when I saw the ETC restrictions! They are, for the most part, ok - but they just handed the Orcs & Gobbos a massive golden handshake - no restrictions, no unit caps - life doesn't get better than that!!!!

I would love to attend this event and see what people do in such regulated environments - but overall the generic rulings seem ok - but will need to look in more detail about other armies specific restrictions.

Well, if you didn't live in Canada... The event has a side event for people who come just to watch. Every team has a decent amount of non-playing coaches and friends and family that come to watch. As you live on the other side of the pond, do tune into these media outlets that usually cover the event:
Rankings HQ - they do live video coverage of the event as well as twitter updates on results live.
Bad dice podcast - The English dark elves players podcast. (Ben curry)
Heelanhammer podcast - This years English ETC captains podcast. (Dan Heelan)

There will probably be loads of other ways to tune into the event.

As for restrictions, many have stated this before me but... The ETC restrictions are pretty light when compared to other comp packs in Europe. Also why do you like this one more than say last years? It's not radically different except that this one is harsher.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 20:04
;6089249']No, they are not tossing darts, they know what is going on. The US is one tiny part of the worldwide way to play Warhammer. You have a destinctive playstyle, so does the rest of the world has.
THey do NOT have any personal bias (WTF stop claiming that if you do not have any data to support it) and they do NOT play in the same league as "intenet whiners".

It's unbelievable how few arguments the uncomped side has. All they're doing is claiming a) the game is perfect b) comped is less balance than uncomped and c) people who play comped are worse than uncomped players.

If by smaller you mean twice the size of Europe and more population, I suppose.....
And they DO have personal bias. If they didn't then why is so much of their restriction list a line by line checkdown of every internet whine from circa 7th edition onward? Why are the restrictions not proportional to the actual performances of the armies in uncomped environments (which ARE objectively comparable from tournament records, by the way) actually played since 8th was released, instead of based on said internet hyperbole? I submit that I have more quantifiable data than your "Its just the best warhammer eva!" line you keep parroting off like a Fox News talking point when your position is challenged with actual facts. The fact that my statement of bias upsets you tells me that its probably been at the back of your mind as well.

And the uncomped "side" has few arguments, because none are needed.
A) The game is not perfect, but its getting refined every day by the actual game designers. You know, the people who actually get paid to work on the game, not the self appointed European warhammer royalty.

B) Comped IS less balanced than uncomped, since the same damn armies win the ECT style events and they keep having to mess with the rules even more each year. A couple specific items and special characters being banned is enough to get more of a variety of winners in US events than ECT has ever had, but the so called experts keep gumming up the works with more bandaids and the game they are playing resembles Warhammer less every year.

C) People who play uncomped are certainly better players, because the same players win the same tournaments regardless of restrictions, wheras there are a class of uncomped people who cannot win unless they are playing with the training wheels on. I play in both and its clearly harder to win in uncomped when there are more threats you might potentially face. Good players win regardless of the environment. Bad players need help.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 20:06
PS- Lord Inquisitor I mean no disrespect towards you in any of this. I think we are actually on the same relative page on a lot of these things and I enjoy our discourse on this site.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 20:10
No, they do not - S5 accurate GT and 2 barren cannons (retarded comparison btw) come to 335; and the fact that you refuse to admit you are wrong (TWICE) even when faced with costs written in an official army book is a telltale sign that you have no clue what you are talking about.

On top of that, not only has the 0-1 rares restriction been on Skaven since the second the pack was released (which was a few days before this thread), but that restriction was even in place last year, so its nothing new. You are CLEARLY just BSing now, since you are completely uninformed and obviously unable to read through neither comp packs nor army books.

First off, ten points off is not the same as you claiming those war machines cost 100 a few points back. OMG I was off by ten points on units operating from memory about units from an army I rarely ever play! Someone alert the forum police!

Second, I have been following these ECT discussions since the first draft on other forums, of which I follow many as a US event organizer, so forgive me if I don't keep a strict warseer timeline on everything.

Now how about you stop dancing around the subject and address the actual question of if a wizard that costs about as much as those war machine setups I described deserves to be as effective as they do or not?

ewar
14-02-2012, 22:49
If by smaller you mean twice the size of Europe and more population, I suppose.....
And they DO have personal bias. If they didn't then why is so much of their restriction list a line by line checkdown of every internet whine from circa 7th edition onward? Why are the restrictions not proportional to the actual performances of the armies in uncomped environments (which ARE objectively comparable from tournament records, by the way) actually played since 8th was released, instead of based on said internet hyperbole? I submit that I have more quantifiable data than your "Its just the best warhammer eva!" line you keep parroting off like a Fox News talking point when your position is challenged with actual facts. The fact that my statement of bias upsets you tells me that its probably been at the back of your mind as well.

And the uncomped "side" has few arguments, because none are needed.
A) The game is not perfect, but its getting refined every day by the actual game designers. You know, the people who actually get paid to work on the game, not the self appointed European warhammer royalty.

B) Comped IS less balanced than uncomped, since the same damn armies win the ECT style events and they keep having to mess with the rules even more each year. A couple specific items and special characters being banned is enough to get more of a variety of winners in US events than ECT has ever had, but the so called experts keep gumming up the works with more bandaids and the game they are playing resembles Warhammer less every year.

C) People who play uncomped are certainly better players, because the same players win the same tournaments regardless of restrictions, wheras there are a class of uncomped people who cannot win unless they are playing with the training wheels on. I play in both and its clearly harder to win in uncomped when there are more threats you might potentially face. Good players win regardless of the environment. Bad players need help.

You keep putting such a nationalistic spin on your every post - why does it matter it's European?

You haven't answered any of my questions by the way - so here are a couple more. Please:
- show me where the 'self appointed' (they're not by the way, they're voted in by the player base) European Warhammer royalty (whatever that is) have said ANYWHERE that their's is the best/only way to play warhammer
- can you show me your 'data' on the different winners of ETC and US uncomped events. Which armies are regularly winning ETC but not in the US? Of course, they're completely different competitions, one being a TEAM tourney and the other being solo
- people who play comped are THE SAME DAMNED PEOPLE who play uncomped. You know, there are a lot of us that do both, it's still the same bloody game!

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread as you're going to get me warning points.

Honestly, I have no idea why you have such a militant hatred of a bunch of comp rules for a tourney on the other side of the world from you, who never even asked for your opinion. Bloody weird.

p.s. if the game was refined every day by the game designers, this whole topic would be redundant, so I think that's self evidently not true.

Snake1311
14-02-2012, 22:50
First off, ten points off is not the same as you claiming those war machines cost 100 a few points back. OMG I was off by ten points on units operating from memory about units from an army I rarely ever play! Someone alert the forum police!

Second, I have been following these ECT discussions since the first draft on other forums, of which I follow many as a US event organizer, so forgive me if I don't keep a strict warseer timeline on everything.

Now how about you stop dancing around the subject and address the actual question of if a wizard that costs about as much as those war machine setups I described deserves to be as effective as they do or not?

Those warmachines are ineffective. With the rune of forging, which you for some reason ignore, they will cost as much as I said they will.
If you think you may be off in your points quotes, maybe you should doublecheck, instead of insisting you're right.
And an uncompled wizard is way better than its points worth in warmachines. Its a little bit better in comped too, since a lvl 4 wizard is roughly 250 pts, i.e. 2 warmachines and not 3. I answered this ages ago.
None of your points are backed up by any evidence. In fact, every time you've quoted evidence, it has been utterly wrong. The restrictions ARE based on performance, if you compare last year's pack to this years and then look at how armies did overall.

SHOW me the average army results from 'Ard Boyz. I've already linked to ETC results from last year(here it is again: http://www.rankingshq.com/etc/tournamentprofile.aspx?EtcId=3&GameSystemId=2), where the STANDARD DEVIATION in army performance is 1.59 on a 0-20 scale, so around 8%, and that is including statistical outliers like the single overperforming Wood Elf army. SHOW ME the analysis on 'Ard Boys, Throne of skulls, or whatever the crown jewel of uncomped tournaments is, and if the deviation is less than 8% I might admit im wrong. Bonus points if the data is statistically meaningful (as in, enough of it) and actually reflects truly competitive play (everyone participating going for the win WAAC style).

Warseer needs to implement an 'evidence or warning points beyond the 3rd post' policy. Its impossible to actually debate something in a civil manner if all you do is reitarate your opinion without anything other than anecdotes as examples.

Duke Ramulots
14-02-2012, 23:01
Snake, all of what you just said is opinion at best. To think a whole style of play should be comped out just because you don't like or respect it shows a fair amount of elitism.

ewar
14-02-2012, 23:04
Snake, all of what you just said is opinion at best. To think a whole style of play should be comped out just because you don't like or respect it shows a fair amount of elitism.

Except for the part where he quoted published results and some statistical analysis, of course?

Phazael
14-02-2012, 23:11
Because, as I stated several times over the last couple of pages, this supposedly one off set of rules for one tournament gets paraded around like the second comming of Jesus by a small but fairly obnoxious group of people. These people expect everyone to conform to it. I am opposed to the spread of ETCripplehammer and would much rather play Warhammer with a few specific comp restrictions, instead of a bunch of hamfisted bull in a china shop changes.

These guys are largely self appointed. The representation is not per player, but per country, so small countries with low player bases have the same say as much larger ones with more players. Hell, the US only gets one team and I don't recall voting for anyone to be the US fantasy or 40k captain, despite running 2-3 GTs a year on the west coast. From what I hear the Euro guys are not exactly voted in either.

As for hard data, Rankings HQ is probably the best source for data on who won with what for the last couple years. This is, of course, assuming you are not like myself and travel to multiple GTs and RTTs in different parts of the country and actually witness things first hand. Many event organizers, such as myself, submit results there and make same results available to the general public when asked.

And actually the Comped people and non Comp people do NOT play in the same events. The no comp guys tend to show up to everything, from Hard Boyz to soft score dominated events like the QCR and everything in between. The Comp Nazis tend to stick to their own events. Thats irrelevant, anyhow, because what I was saying was that the same guys who win the uncomped events almost always win the comped events too, but that there is a wider range of army types from all players at the uncomped events. Where as, the pro comp guys tend to only place well in comp heavy events. This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it. So if Player A can win in event X and Y, but Player B can only win in event X, who exactly has more skill?

and PS- they are refining it on a regular basis, ergo the FAQs being more timely and newer books comming out to bring things in line.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 23:18
PPS- The crown jewel of Warhammer is actually the Quake City Rumble, which is a little comp happy for my tastes, but probably the most fun you will have playing and the best players in the country come to throw down there every year.

PPPS- Who the hell takes the Rune of Forging when an Engineer can cover several war machines much cheaper? Of course most armies that take a L4 also take a L2, if only to carry a scroll so they are still paying more points, but hey don't let me get in the way of you hammering my nards to the floor for a ten point math error.....

Phazael
14-02-2012, 23:19
Warseer needs to implement an 'evidence or warning points beyond the 3rd post' policy. Its impossible to actually debate something in a civil manner if all you do is reitarate your opinion without anything other than anecdotes as examples.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Duke Ramulots
14-02-2012, 23:24
Phazel, where do you run your events? I'd be interested in playing in them if youre around SD.

The Low King
14-02-2012, 23:25
.
PPPS- Who the hell takes the Rune of Forging when an Engineer can cover several war machines much cheaper?

The same player who won those tournaments in the US with his dwarfs?


Master engineer (engineers only work on one machine and do far less) costs 70 points (naked, tends to cost more one you realise he needs some protection) and cant join a crew. He lets you reroll the first artillery dice one one warmachine within 3".

Rune of Forging costs 35 points and lets you reroll any misfire on either artillery dice.


Rune of Forging is one of the most popular dwarf runes atm, up there with Rune of Dispelling, Master rune of Balance and Rune of fire. The advice given on bugmans is to ALWAYS have it on cannons. Master engineers are advised when you have more than one grudge thrower.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 23:29
Well the SD guys are running the Broadside Bash next weekend, which I will be at. My next fantasy event is the SoCal Slaughter 6 (couple team tournaments for free tickets before that) which is at the September con in LAX (strategicon.net). The Bash is pretty compy and our event just has a short list of items and special characters we ban from play and a simple soft score system to keep people from going too far overboard with the power builds. We (and I think the Bash and the Quake) do judge comp of lists purely to set lists of similar power against each other in the first two rounds of the tournament, so the power gamers don't get to curb stomp the fluff bunnies early on for easy points. Its kind of the norm for West Coast.

Phazael
14-02-2012, 23:31
How many misfires a turn do you expect to need to reroll? And to be fair, most people around here just run one cannon, purely for monster insurance. The S5 laser guided Grudges and Flame Cannons tend to be more popular.

Ronin[XiC]
14-02-2012, 23:31
Because, as I stated several times over the last couple of pages, this supposedly one off set of rules for one tournament gets paraded around like the second comming of Jesus by a small but fairly obnoxious group of people. These people expect everyone to conform to it.
No one does that.

I am opposed to the spread of ETCripplehammer and would much rather play Warhammer with a few specific comp restrictions, instead of a bunch of hamfisted bull in a china shop changes. "few specific comp restrictions" is still comp. You either have to accept comp or don't.


These guys are largely self appointed. things are changing and the German team will be community picked this year.

The representation is not per player, but per country, so small countries with low player bases have the same say as much larger ones with more players. Hell, the US only gets one team
wtf? So china should be allowed to send in 153 different teams to the next olympics?

and I don't recall voting for anyone to be the US fantasy or 40k captain, despite running 2-3 GTs a year on the west coast. From what I hear the Euro guys are not exactly voted in either. Maybe they knew you'd only hate about comp and saved the pain.


As for hard data, Rankings HQ is probably the best source for data on who won with what for the last couple years. This is, of course, assuming you are not like myself and travel to multiple GTs and RTTs in different parts of the country and actually witness things first hand. Many event organizers, such as myself, submit results there and make same results available to the general public when asked.
German tournaments have been using a rankings system since the beginning of the 7th edition -> www.tabletopturniere.de THOUSEND of tournaments are listed and the results show one thing: Daemons are too strong.


the same guys who win the uncomped events almost always win the comped events too I need proof for that claim.

but that there is a wider range of army types from all players at the uncomped events and proof for that claim.

Where as, the pro comp guys tend to only place well in comp heavy events. And proof for that claim.

This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it. So if Player A can win in event X and Y, but Player B can only win in event X, who exactly has more skill? Please point out the data on the website to make it clear for everyone.

ANd btw lol USA is a tiny dwarf O_o
Just look at your rankings HQ
USA
Players: 2027
Tournaments: 150

Top 3 players attended less than 10 tournaments
And our http://www.tabletopturniere.de/t3_ntr.php
Gesamtanzahl der Spiele(players): 5172
Gesamtanzahl der Turniere(tournaments): 1406
Our #1 played in over 80(!) tournaments!

Lol

Rosstifer
14-02-2012, 23:38
Where as, the pro comp guys tend to only place well in comp heavy events. This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it. So if Player A can win in event X and Y, but Player B can only win in event X, who exactly has more skill?


I don't know where your getting that thought from. A recent example Bryan Carmicheal won the UK Throne of Skulls and also won Valhalla, a heavily comped tournament. Several other notable tournament players won 5/5 games at the Throne of Skulls (Nick Pym, Ben Curry, Dan Heelan) and still have many comped tournament wins under there belt, and I know for a fact they would all advocate comp over no comp for competitive events.

Good players will win regardless of how much comp there is, and can perform well under any system. Comp just stops 6 games of 10 Dicing Mindrazor every turn, or 6 dicing Dwellers whilst pushing your army that literally consists of 2 Ogre Hordes and nothing else or whatever at each other, which is boring as hell and requires no tactics, but is what so many non-comp tournaments end up as. Hence why we have comp at all.

The Low King
15-02-2012, 00:00
How many misfires a turn do you expect to need to reroll? And to be fair, most people around here just run one cannon, purely for monster insurance. The S5 laser guided Grudges and Flame Cannons tend to be more popular.

Flame cannons? really? the ones that got nerfed in the FAQ to have 0" range? the one units in the dwarf rulebook that is widely regarded as useless?

With two artillery dice rolls per cannon i expect to have 1 misfire every 3 turns per cannon. Rune of forging allows me to reroll both possible misfire rolls. Master engineer lets me only reroll one on the first dice (wich means the ball can still thud into the ground and stop). If you just have one cannons you want even more runes on it, the number of times one cannon has failed me is insane.

ewar
15-02-2012, 00:23
Because, as I stated several times over the last couple of pages, this supposedly one off set of rules for one tournament gets paraded around like the second comming of Jesus by a small but fairly obnoxious group of people. These people expect everyone to conform to it. I am opposed to the spread of ETCripplehammer and would much rather play Warhammer with a few specific comp restrictions, instead of a bunch of hamfisted bull in a china shop changes.

These guys are largely self appointed. The representation is not per player, but per country, so small countries with low player bases have the same say as much larger ones with more players. Hell, the US only gets one team and I don't recall voting for anyone to be the US fantasy or 40k captain, despite running 2-3 GTs a year on the west coast. From what I hear the Euro guys are not exactly voted in either.

As for hard data, Rankings HQ is probably the best source for data on who won with what for the last couple years. This is, of course, assuming you are not like myself and travel to multiple GTs and RTTs in different parts of the country and actually witness things first hand. Many event organizers, such as myself, submit results there and make same results available to the general public when asked.

And actually the Comped people and non Comp people do NOT play in the same events. The no comp guys tend to show up to everything, from Hard Boyz to soft score dominated events like the QCR and everything in between. The Comp Nazis tend to stick to their own events. Thats irrelevant, anyhow, because what I was saying was that the same guys who win the uncomped events almost always win the comped events too, but that there is a wider range of army types from all players at the uncomped events. Where as, the pro comp guys tend to only place well in comp heavy events. This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it. So if Player A can win in event X and Y, but Player B can only win in event X, who exactly has more skill?

and PS- they are refining it on a regular basis, ergo the FAQs being more timely and newer books comming out to bring things in line.

Show me the DATA. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. As others on here who actually can be arsed to look it up have shown, there is a significant amount of numbers out there to show the exact opposite to your claims. Come up with something tangible. And don't call people obnoxious comp nazis - I mean how ridiculous can you be?!

In the UK very few tournaments run ETC comp - much more common is Dan Heelans much softer SCGT comp (which I like), but as always, to each their own.

IcedCrow
15-02-2012, 01:43
If you can win several styles of tournaments at a go, comp, uncomp, comp version 2.0, comp version ETC, then you are indeed a good player. Otherwise, there is too much to factor in in regards with luck at the table, luck with who you draw, and learning how to abuse the system in place at whatever tournament you are at (be it uncomped abuses, or abusing a comp system, it doesn't matter).

Lord Inquisitor
15-02-2012, 03:07
PS- Lord Inquisitor I mean no disrespect towards you in any of this. I think we are actually on the same relative page on a lot of these things and I enjoy our discourse on this site.
I appreciate it. Likewise I have enjoyed our conversations, and I respect you as a poster. To be honest though, that's pretty much all that's keeping me responding at this point. You seem very measured on all other topics but on this one you seem ... angry. Like there is someone - presumably the "vocal minority" you keep mentioning - is personally offending you with ETC comp. I would ask you to take a step back and look at how you are coming across.


A) The game is not perfect, but its getting refined every day by the actual game designers. You know, the people who actually get paid to work on the game, not the self appointed European warhammer royalty.
This assumes three things - (1) that the designers care about fine-scale balance, or whether they are able to stand the stress of tournament-level powergaming rather than casual play, (2) the army books are all written for the same edition (or are errata'd appropriately), (3) the designers are capable of playtesting in-house to the level that everything is balanced.

(1) has historically not been the case. GW has gone to great pains to say their games are not designed for tournament play. Things seem to be different with the 8th ed books so it's heading in the right direction.

(2) they're not all written for the same edition and GW typically do not adjust points values, etc., for the new edition. We all know units in the older books that got dramatically better/worse with the advent of 8th.

(3) The books just aren't balanced. The 8th ed books are a lot better - it seems there's a big push for internal balance. However, howlers just get through. Yes, mawseeker was too good in the old book. They could have raised the cost, made it tyrant only or one per army. They raised the cost four-fold, and made it one per army and tyrants only. It went from a must-have to a total waste of space. Then look at books like the Skaven, which were a train wreck. Bad rules - 12 pages or FAQs to make it work? - and just plain badly tested overpowered and underpowered stuff in that book. The abomination should never have gone to print like that. I've had one of those things literally kill 1500 points of daemons that were all attacking it simultaneously. No Skaven player I've played has got ALL its rules exactly right. It's just appalling. No, the designers aren't perfect. On the other hand, if the designers had access to hundreds of tournament results from all around the world - or made extensive errata to points values after release - it would no doubt make it easier to balance perfectly. Alessio has written about this.

8th Edition books are pretty good. Do you know of any tournaments that only allow 8th ed books?


B) Comped IS less balanced than uncomped, since the same damn armies win the ECT style events and they keep having to mess with the rules even more each year. A couple specific items and special characters being banned is enough to get more of a variety of winners in US events than ECT has ever had, but the so called experts keep gumming up the works with more bandaids and the game they are playing resembles Warhammer less every year.
I saw the same damn armies at Ard Boyz top tables. Game 9, I saw nothing but daemons and skaven at the top 3 tables. In my experience, comp gives more variety in armies. Now, I'd like to test this. You say you have data? I started a thread here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?333078-Request-for-tournament-data-on-comp-vs-no-comp)on the subject and give me the data and I'll run the stats.


C) People who play uncomped are certainly better players, because the same players win the same tournaments regardless of restrictions, wheras there are a class of uncomped people who cannot win unless they are playing with the training wheels on. I play in both and its clearly harder to win in uncomped when there are more threats you might potentially face. Good players win regardless of the environment. Bad players need help.
*Sigh*

I disagree and I could just as easily say there's a subset of no-comp people who only win no-comp events (and I know a few) therefore they cannot win without their gimmicks/crutches like teclis, chosenstar, etc.

The same people win no comp and comp because they're the best players. Comp doesn't allow bad players to win - I absolutely completely disagree with that. If anything, a mediocre player can go further with a netlist in a no comp environment. (Up to a point - a good player will still win).

So what's the point!? I hear you say. I feel that the tactics used change. At Ard Boyz, the games are tactical - but it's a tactical game trading Teclis' spells vs siren song and Ld bomb. Not maneuver or troops so much. Whereas with these "gimmicky" tactics removed, more focus is on more "historically" tactical games. Now, there's nothing wrong with the "gimmicky tactics" - damn, game 9 of Ard Boyz was one of the most though-provoking and tense and tactical games I've ever had - but there's also something to be said for focussing the game back on more conventional tactics.


Because, as I stated several times over the last couple of pages, this supposedly one off set of rules for one tournament gets paraded around like the second comming of Jesus by a small but fairly obnoxious group of people. These people expect everyone to conform to it.
Who? Where? I've never met or seen these people on boards. I don't frequent the Warhammer Forum though.


I am opposed to the spread of ETCripplehammer and would much rather play Warhammer with a few specific comp restrictions, instead of a bunch of hamfisted bull in a china shop changes.

And actually the Comped people and non Comp people do NOT play in the same events. The no comp guys tend to show up to everything, from Hard Boyz to soft score dominated events like the QCR and everything in between. The Comp Nazis tend to stick to their own events.
Okay firstly saying "Cripplehammer" and "Comp Nazis", quite aside from Godwin's Law, just undermines everything you say. Completely.

Secondly, ETC is designed for their tournaments, which are team tournaments. I don't agree with a points or model cap on units as a general rule (I don't think Ogres should be forbidden from having a horde when grave guard can, for example) but in a team tournament it makes sense - stalemate armies need to be discouraged. We were discussing this in the other thread. So THAT'S something I don't like in general but makes perfect sense in ETC.

Thirdly I prefer comp and I play both comp and no comp. And I disagree that anti-compers go to comp events more than vice versa.




Thats irrelevant, anyhow, because what I was saying was that the same guys who win the uncomped events almost always win the comped events too, but that there is a wider range of army types from all players at the uncomped events. Where as, the pro comp guys tend to only place well in comp heavy events. This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it.
Absolutely completely disagree from my own personal experience. I am most willing to test this indeed I linked to my thread above. Give me the data, let's test this! :D

quietus1986
15-02-2012, 05:46
I still say that they over comp in ETC prefure minor comps. might try out for the Belgium team for next year ( Yes I play comp and non comp) prefer non comp way more army variation in non comp events I have gone to.
And the comp from ETC makes wood elfs weaker than they are. And In Belgium its true that winners in comp events are most of the time also the winners in non comp events.
One thing named characters are never allowed in a tournament.

Echunia
15-02-2012, 08:19
I still say that they over comp in ETC prefure minor comps. might try out for the Belgium team for next year ( Yes I play comp and non comp) prefer non comp way more army variation in non comp events I have gone to.
And the comp from ETC makes wood elfs weaker than they are. And In Belgium its true that winners in comp events are most of the time also the winners in non comp events.
One thing named characters are never allowed in a tournament.

Good luck with trying out for the team! I hope you do well!

As for the rest, Lord Inquisitor summed up all my thoughts perfectly. So there's really nothing for me to add.

I've tried to get this thread back on track several times. But if both sides can't start to behave themselves and take this squabble somewhere else I will just close it.

Snake1311
15-02-2012, 09:32
Phazael:


This is not opinion, this is documentable fact from the winners listings on Rankings HQ and sites like it. So if Player A can win in event X and Y, but Player B can only win in event X, who exactly has more skill?

This is a very good point. Now give me a link to prove that its true, otherwise I call BS.


PPS- The crown jewel of Warhammer is actually the Quake City Rumble, which is a little comp happy for my tastes, but probably the most fun you will have playing and the best players in the country come to throw down there every year.


The Comp Nazis tend to stick to their own events.

Don't know statistics about the US, but in Europe almost all events are comp - uncomped are an exception, and are generally there just for variety.

Why is 'Quake City Rumble' the biggest tournament? Firstly, it only takes place in one country; secondly, how many participants are there? SCGT in the UK is 140 spaces and sold out in 28 minutes; the ETC is 250+ players.



PPPS- Who the hell takes the Rune of Forging when an Engineer can cover several war machines much cheaper?

Erm, everyone who plays dwarfs well? Including your top player in the US.


The S5 laser guided Grudges and Flame Cannons tend to be more popular.

Flame Cannons. Brought up in the context of competitive play. Are you frikkin kidding me?


Show me the DATA. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. As others on here who actually can be arsed to look it up have shown, there is a significant amount of numbers out there to show the exact opposite to your claims. Come up with something tangible. And don't call people obnoxious comp nazis - I mean how ridiculous can you be?!

In the UK very few tournaments run ETC comp - much more common is Dan Heelans much softer SCGT comp (which I like), but as always, to each their own.

Ewar QFT. The arguments are fine, even somewhat logical; but so is an argument for the sun orbiting the earth. Get some actual DATA and show it to us. Otherwise you're just some random guy running your mouth, and being wrong about the comp contents, point costs, ridiculous army setups and competitive flame cannons doesn't help your credibility.

Unlike ewar, I don't mind the trashtalk, but at least mix it in with something actually useful.

On a side note, I do believe Hellan's comp was softer because of concerns the ETC comp could be softer, and he didn't want UK players to miss out on opportunities for experience (SCGT got announced much earlier than the ETC draft). Otherwise, from what I've noticed all other tournies follow the draft.

Snake1311
15-02-2012, 09:36
BTW, checked out Quake City Rumble. Last year it had 93 players. Big-ish tournament, but in the UK alone there are 7-8 same sized or bigger tournies every year, so to compare it to the ETC is laughable. Hell, even SCGT in the tiny-compared-to-the-US-UK is almost double the size.


Secondly, ETC is designed for their tournaments, which are team tournaments. I don't agree with a points or model cap on units as a general rule (I don't think Ogres should be forbidden from having a horde when grave guard can, for example) but in a team tournament it makes sense - stalemate armies need to be discouraged. We were discussing this in the other thread. So THAT'S something I don't like in general but makes perfect sense in ETC.

I think one of the main drivers behind point/model caps is the availability of stubborn everywhere. For example, i've seen the Ogre Horde Irongut Deathstar (1 big unit, all chars in it, 2 other units of whatever to support it - maybe even sabretusks so they dont give enough points away) rampage around, and it is very hard to counter considering its a point-and-click army.

Ogres CAN horde up, but they'd have to use Bulls, with a char or two in. Its the same idea as with HE elites - they can't horde up because they are too expensive and hit too hard. An irongut deathstar will dish out 4.5 str6 attacks per 20mm frontage, thats just too much. Un-horded, its 3 attacks per 20mm because of the monsterous support rule, which is on par with other hordes (like your GG example).

There is some merit to increasing the caps, but that doesn't really add much to gameplay - the 'hammer' and 'tarpit' units on both sides will increase to the new point and model caps respectively, at the expense of more support units - and the tactical options will suffer overall.

Bloodknight
15-02-2012, 12:22
If by smaller you mean twice the size of Europe and more population, I suppose.....

Just as an aside, Europe has over twice the population of the US. 740 million vs 310. The EU alone has 502 million.

TsukeFox
18-02-2012, 04:17
Back on my soap box for Chaos Dwarfs ( I play skaven & hopefully soon Tomb Kings):

I was at a GW store today and noticed the Thorne of Chaos book. Why out law Chaos Dwarfs?? I say out law the tyrants of ETC-!! Revolt-!!

Chaos dwarf players of old paid good money back in the day- let them play again.
Just do a better job of comping ETC tyrants.

Duke Ramulots
18-02-2012, 04:38
Just as an aside, Europe has over twice the population of the US. 740 million vs 310. The EU alone has 502 million.

Its funny how Russia becomes a part of europe when you want to use it for your benefit.

Trains_Get_Robbed
18-02-2012, 05:57
No offense to the majority of those in this thread, but comparing the quality of skill of players in the U.S to that of EUROPE through Rankingshq, or tournaments played (via websites like Rankingshq, or comp vs uncomp play-style) is demented. Just because a person has only attended six or so tournaments isn't something to be compared too.

First off, contrasting the skill level difference, economics, gaming-population and culture is a effort in futility as you're comparing THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE TO THE U.S. Its well established in simple numbers that Europe has a larger player base (through population alone), and with differing player tendencies and game restrictions (see what this thread has devolved into and others similar), I have no quarrel with this. However, its also well established that YOU'RE COMPARING AN ENTIRE CONTINENT TO A SINGLE COUNTRY.

Moreover, unlike in Europe, we citizens of the stars and stripes, have a larger geographical separation, in addition to having a lesser population and gaming community to that of Europe in its while. Why, if tournaments were 2-4 hour drives and available every weekend -like in your countries I would attend as many tournaments as you er. . . blokes(?).

Realistically though, tournaments and U.S Warhammer gaming tendencies don't allow that. I fiscally can't afford to travel to Missouri one weekend, and then to Vegas the next, returning to Mi inbetween the weekends for school and work. With the access to regular scheduled tournaments, and general European-wide infrastructure like trains, and public-viable hostels/boarding halls, interconnecting roads, etc. . . you can easily afford, and readily find tournaments that are within geographical "distance" of your home.

(Really? You would contest that driving from Germany to France for a tourney is a long drive? :p Good luck here in the States.)

Henceforth, saying that U.S players have more or less talent or play a better/worse game is both misinformed and ignorant (see Lord I, or Rhellion or others etc. . .). This thread was for discussion on ETC changes -not whether you like the ETC or not.

*(Yes, I know this post was kind of hypocritical in a nature -its irritating being misjudged [as a U.S gamer] though for three pages.)

Echunia
18-02-2012, 19:49
No offense to the majority of those in this thread, but comparing the quality of skill of players in the U.S to that of EUROPE through Rankingshq, or tournaments played (via websites like Rankingshq, or comp vs uncomp play-style) is demented. Just because a person has only attended six or so tournaments isn't something to be compared too.

First off, contrasting the skill level difference, economics, gaming-population and culture is a effort in futility as you're comparing THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE TO THE U.S. Its well established in simple numbers that Europe has a larger player base (through population alone), and with differing player tendencies and game restrictions (see what this thread has devolved into and others similar), I have no quarrel with this. However, its also well established that YOU'RE COMPARING AN ENTIRE CONTINENT TO A SINGLE COUNTRY.

Moreover, unlike in Europe, we citizens of the stars and stripes, have a larger geographical separation, in addition to having a lesser population and gaming community to that of Europe in its while. Why, if tournaments were 2-4 hour drives and available every weekend -like in your countries I would attend as many tournaments as you er. . . blokes(?).

Realistically though, tournaments and U.S Warhammer gaming tendencies don't allow that. I fiscally can't afford to travel to Missouri one weekend, and then to Vegas the next, returning to Mi inbetween the weekends for school and work. With the access to regular scheduled tournaments, and general European-wide infrastructure like trains, and public-viable hostels/boarding halls, interconnecting roads, etc. . . you can easily afford, and readily find tournaments that are within geographical "distance" of your home.

(Really? You would contest that driving from Germany to France for a tourney is a long drive? :p Good luck here in the States.)

Henceforth, saying that U.S players have more or less talent or play a better/worse game is both misinformed and ignorant (see Lord I, or Rhellion or others etc. . .). This thread was for discussion on ETC changes -not whether you like the ETC or not.

*(Yes, I know this post was kind of hypocritical in a nature -its irritating being misjudged [as a U.S gamer] though for three pages.)

I agree with your point and comparing the two is indeed nonsensical. I think that the reason this is done often is that the trend seems to be that comp-bashers come from America. In a majority of cases the people who come in and derail a whole thread with how much they hate comp are American. I think that this just stems from the fact that there's less comped tournaments / environments in the US. So it's completely understandable but I think people start to stereotype US players after spending to much time on the forums.

That being said I don't get why people hate the Daemon comp so much. Sure they loose some stuff, but most things are reasonable. The 28 cap isn't that harsh when considering how good the troops are, the bsb thing is completely reasonable and no doubling up on the gifts. Now I can agree that the MoS is a little bit iffy but I think people should playtest before crying foul. I'm not sure about siren song, but I'm a fan of anything that limits auto-includes.

Snake1311
18-02-2012, 21:48
No offense to the majority of those in this thread, but comparing the quality of skill of players in the U.S to that of EUROPE through Rankingshq, or tournaments played (via websites like Rankingshq, or comp vs uncomp play-style) is demented. Just because a person has only attended six or so tournaments isn't something to be compared too.

First off, contrasting the skill level difference, economics, gaming-population and culture is a effort in futility as you're comparing THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE TO THE U.S. Its well established in simple numbers that Europe has a larger player base (through population alone), and with differing player tendencies and game restrictions (see what this thread has devolved into and others similar), I have no quarrel with this. However, its also well established that YOU'RE COMPARING AN ENTIRE CONTINENT TO A SINGLE COUNTRY.

Moreover, unlike in Europe, we citizens of the stars and stripes, have a larger geographical separation, in addition to having a lesser population and gaming community to that of Europe in its while. Why, if tournaments were 2-4 hour drives and available every weekend -like in your countries I would attend as many tournaments as you er. . . blokes(?).

Realistically though, tournaments and U.S Warhammer gaming tendencies don't allow that. I fiscally can't afford to travel to Missouri one weekend, and then to Vegas the next, returning to Mi inbetween the weekends for school and work. With the access to regular scheduled tournaments, and general European-wide infrastructure like trains, and public-viable hostels/boarding halls, interconnecting roads, etc. . . you can easily afford, and readily find tournaments that are within geographical "distance" of your home.

(Really? You would contest that driving from Germany to France for a tourney is a long drive? :p Good luck here in the States.)

Henceforth, saying that U.S players have more or less talent or play a better/worse game is both misinformed and ignorant (see Lord I, or Rhellion or others etc. . .). This thread was for discussion on ETC changes -not whether you like the ETC or not.

*(Yes, I know this post was kind of hypocritical in a nature -its irritating being misjudged [as a U.S gamer] though for three pages.)

I didn't really see anything being said about US players in general, and I've been pretty active in here :s. I don't think anyone believes a certain regions are better than others by significant margins.

I'm happy to see your post content though, especially written by a US player. I completely agree that US geography wouldn't allow: a) such massive tournaments, b) such frequency of big-ish GT style evens, and c) a level of regular interaction between player X and Y like in European countries. For these reasons, the US metagame feels like its behind the European one - its not that the opinions and views of US players are so different, but they just seem to be the same things EU players have been saying 6ish months ago.

See, in a setting with close proximity and regular tournaments, when a good player tries some dirty list and it works effectively, the idea spreads like wildfire - and soon tournament attendees all over the country are aware of it (lets say for example, the new-ish trend of WoC to play almost fully tzeentch lists with heroes on discs, cav deathstars and shield warriors - almost fully displacing the old khorne halberd warriors and marauder hordes). At that point:
1) the idea fails and is quickly forgotten, or used as a cautionary tale;
2) the idea meets its match at high levels and becomes part of the metagame - it can be dealt with and powerlevel is fine, but you have to keep it mind when designing your lists, or you might get spanked;
3) the idea is great, gets improved on by other players, and even with reasonable precautions those lists keep overperforming consistenly.

When 3 occurs, things get comped.

Long story short, I think the US will slowly get more and more comp-oriented. If nothing else, some of the most dedicated players - the ETC team (you have to agree that for them to travel all the way to Europe to play warhammer for a weekend takes dedication), who are likely also the ones with contacts to TOs, will bring it with them. The ones who refuse to give comp a chance will slowly become the minority, and will rage and overreact even more than they do now.

Plexi
18-02-2012, 22:01
The whole magic phase is laughable. The rules they have in place are so silly and ridiculous that they are basically making up their own game.

DaemonReign
18-02-2012, 22:29
The whole magic phase is laughable. The rules they have in place are so silly and ridiculous that they are basically making up their own game.

Yup. It all reaks of hubris really. :p

Duke Ramulots
18-02-2012, 23:43
I find the magic phase to be a lot of fun.

Ronin[XiC]
19-02-2012, 11:27
Its funny how Russia becomes a part of europe when you want to use it for your benefit.

2010 with russia is 820 million
without russia it's 680 million.

Still twice as big as the USofA.

Duke Ramulots
19-02-2012, 15:21
;6096426']2010 with russia is 820 million
without russia it's 680 million.

Still twice as big as the USofA.

I dont care who has the higher population. I just think its funny that all the transcontinental countries become European when it suits you and then not when it doesn't. Also, not twice as big, you have more people not more land(USA 3.7 million square miles, EU 1.7 milion square miles) win for the USA...lol

Ronin[XiC]
19-02-2012, 17:32
If by smaller you mean twice the size of Europe and more population, I suppose.....
That was the claim. Size might be true, but population is the opposite of true.. that's been all.

Liber
19-02-2012, 20:16
With the access to regular scheduled tournaments, and general European-wide infrastructure


Aww, now you made me sad...I wish we had infrastructure :/

Duke Ramulots
19-02-2012, 20:34
Aww, now you made me sad...I wish we had infrastructure :/

we do, its just old and crumbling and made for a country wide population of 25 million :)

The bearded one
19-02-2012, 20:38
I dont care who has the higher population. I just think its funny that all the transcontinental countries become European when it suits you and then not when it doesn't.

Historically Russia has always been a part of Europe and European affairs. The vast majority of Russian population (78%) is located in the far western portion anyway and only 22% in the remaining 75% of the country in Asia.

Just wanted to share :)

Lord Inquisitor
19-02-2012, 21:35
I have to say, it's been a while since I've seem a thread derailed quite this badly.

WarmbloodedLizard
19-02-2012, 23:15
I have to say, it's been a while since I've seem a thread derailed quite this badly.

This brings us to another very important question: Which is you favourite pokémon?

The bearded one
19-02-2012, 23:19
I have to say, it's been a while since I've seem a thread derailed quite this badly.

Nothing wrong with that. Trainwrecks are funny.

Speaking of which, and going 1 page back; could the person who brought up the dwarf flamecannon in relation to competitive play explain himself? It's widely regarded as pretty much the poorest warmachine due to the FAQ removing it's 12" range. Or is this FAQ being ignored in tournaments (which would make it fairy decent. A D3 wounds template is quite scary to monstrous units like ogres.

quietus1986
20-02-2012, 04:08
Still saying its the first draft there are as far as i know always a minimum of 3 drafts we will see if they are still this heavy when the final draft if hire.
I Em really thinking of trying out for etc ( fluff lists get extra points )

tmarichards
20-02-2012, 08:49
This brings us to another very important question: Which is you favourite pokémon?

You rang? :)

Not been able to use him for a while though, he just gets smashed by Stealth Rocks :(

Snake1311
20-02-2012, 10:17
Nothing wrong with that. Trainwrecks are funny.

Speaking of which, and going 1 page back; could the person who brought up the dwarf flamecannon in relation to competitive play explain himself? It's widely regarded as pretty much the poorest warmachine due to the FAQ removing it's 12" range. Or is this FAQ being ignored in tournaments (which would make it fairy decent. A D3 wounds template is quite scary to monstrous units like ogres.

Its pretty crappy with the 12". The chaos dwarf version is 24" for a mere 5 pts more, and I still haven't seen it taken due to other goodies. The Flame Cannon with the FAQ is the laughing stock of warmachines and unit choices in general.

I mean, can you think of any other unit which would still be bad if it cost half its points?
Grail Relique may well be the only other candidate.

The bearded one
20-02-2012, 13:27
Its pretty crappy with the 12". The chaos dwarf version is 24" for a mere 5 pts more, and I still haven't seen it taken due to other goodies.

Yeah, though the chaos dwarf version is quite over the top in comparison to any firethrower'esque unit. Does the chaos dwarf one still have armourpiercing like in the experimental rules?

Lord Inquisitor
20-02-2012, 16:31
This brings us to another very important question: Which is you favourite pokémon?
Unfortunately, I'm too old to have a favourite pokemon. My daughter likes Suicune though.


Its pretty crappy with the 12". The chaos dwarf version is 24" for a mere 5 pts more, and I still haven't seen it taken due to other goodies.
I dunno, the Magma Cannon seems to be regarded and one of the two most overpowered things in the Chaos Dwarf list. I think we'll see plenty of them eventually.

IcedCrow
20-02-2012, 16:41
We have a guy using chaos dwarves in our summer campaign. I for one can't wait to face off against them.

Duke Ramulots
20-02-2012, 16:41
This brings us to another very important question: Which is you favourite pokémon?

My generation doesn't have favorite Pokemon, we have favorite Transformers and Gobots and the like.

TsukeFox
21-02-2012, 03:57
We have a guy using chaos dwarves in our summer campaign. I for one can't wait to face off against them.

That is the spirit -!! One should be excited to battle against as many different armies as possible.
Come on ETC lift the boycott-!!


I almost want to say, excluding the Destroyer, that Chaos Dwarfs are far more tamed than Ogres...but I might be bias as I have hated Ogres since they first came out in 6th & not a new Chaos Dwarf list instead.

Snake1311
21-02-2012, 13:16
That is the spirit -!! One should be excited to battle against as many different armies as possible.
Come on ETC lift the boycott-!!


I almost want to say, excluding the Destroyer, that Chaos Dwarfs are far more tamed than Ogres...but I might be bias as I have hated Ogres since they first came out in 6th & not a new Chaos Dwarf list instead.

You realise the boycott has very little to do with their perceived power level and balance right? Since its heavy-ish comp anyway, any issues will get fixed.

The problem is availability - 30+ countries attending, many with a relatively small scene. Some will have had barely any access to the book, it being from forgeworld on top of being stupidly priced, nevermind actually getting any practice playing against them (or having the option to field them for that matter).

Its all in the name of fairness.

Shamutanti
21-02-2012, 13:52
The problem is availability - 30+ countries attending, many with a relatively small scene. Some will have had barely any access to the book, it being from forgeworld on top of being stupidly priced, nevermind actually getting any practice playing against them (or having the option to field them for that matter).

Its all in the name of fairness.

Surely that's the same defence as; I haven't bought the Bretonnian Book and no one around here plays Bretonnians, so it's unfair if someone else uses them...

If it was in the name of fairness, everyone would use the same army, with the same models and book.

Gazak Blacktoof
21-02-2012, 16:54
Surely that's the same defence as; I haven't bought the Bretonnian Book and no one around here plays Bretonnians, so it's unfair if someone else uses them...

If it was in the name of fairness, everyone would use the same army, with the same models and book.

That would be a restriction of an entirely different order of magnitude. The other warhammer army books (including Brets) are readily available, as are the armies. I suspect that the restriction might be lifted for future events but snake's rationale for the decision to keep out chaos dwarfs seems sensible.

Damocles8
21-02-2012, 17:02
shouldn't this be in tournament discussion?

Shamutanti
21-02-2012, 17:30
That would be a restriction of an entirely different order of magnitude. The other warhammer army books (including Brets) are readily available, as are the armies. I suspect that the restriction might be lifted for future events but snake's rationale for the decision to keep out chaos dwarfs seems sensible.

I'm not sure why the Throne of Chaos book isn't readily available either...? Or the models?