2012 First ETC draft

[Duke Ramulots]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Phazel, where do you run your events? I'd be interested in playing in them if youre around SD.

[The Low King]

.
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]

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]

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]]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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!

[quietus1986]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.