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

Experiment 626 wrote:

ETC is a team tournament and really shouldn't be used as any kind of measuring stick because it's designed to play a totally different style of game... For example, most teams bring a combination of lists that are total beatsticks as well as a list/s that are designed to simply get draws/play pts denial to avoid hard-counter match-ups.
You get the chance to try and pair-up the most favourable match-ups possible, which is obviously something that is completely impossible in the more standard 1 vs 1 tournaments.

I've seen people try to implement the ETC rules for a regular tournament and it's nothing short of a complete disaster because it's not designed to work the 'normal' way. (though it does provide some good humor in the process!)

Sad to hear that this is your experience. You might be unaware then, and this number is hard to estimate, but I'm almost certain there's from fifty to one hundred tournaments per year in Europe that follow the ETC rules, and only one of them is a team tournament. The army restrictions work perfectly fine in a 1on1 tournament. There's no point in arguing this point either, since there's empirical evidence that the restrictions are fine since they're in fact used all the time and the only thing that people change annually is small tweaking and updates for new army books.

In fact the same type of system would've been implemented for 40K but the scene for that game consisted mostly of people who weren't that serious about gaming. I think this is a product of Tuomas Pirinen's 'serious' WHFB edition which created a large amount of hardcore players in Europe who want to play a balanced game instead of the game we played at UK GTs where top10 had 9 nearly identical Daemon lists and Iron Warrior lists.

You're of course free to manufacture any kind of an opinion as you like but the evidence regarding the actual subject matter of this thread, based on tournaments with comp restrictions, suggests that there indeed is a gap between Warhammer army books large enough that it can only be remedied with small restrictions on the most OP combos, and in the most extreme circumstances, army points value increases / VP per unit reductions.

Just to make my point clear for every lurker who happens to read. A no comp Warriors of Chaos army might have a Nurgle DP with 1+ save and 5+ ward and 4 magic levels and wings, a 3 wound BSB with 1+ save and 3+ ward with 1's re-rolled, 2 Chimeras, 6 Chariots, Skullcrushers, Hellcannon and some Hounds. An ETC comped Warriors of Chaos army would have a Nurgle DP with a 3+ save and 5+ ward and 3 magic levels and no wings, a 3 wound BSB with 1+ save and 3+ ward but no re-roll, 1 Chimera, 4 Chariots, Skullcrushers, Hounds, a unit or two (depending on size) of Chaos Warriors, and a Hellcannon. Now, it's still a tough army, but some spamming and a few item combinations have been eliminated. It's still almost the same army. People who don't play with ETC army restrictions simply seem to have no clue what it actually does. How could you make an argument that a composition system that enforces the latter army would be 'nothing short of a complete disaster' as the previous poster implied? The players themselves are happier with the armies they are 'forced' to field because they are slightly more flexible and look nicer on the table because of unit variation. And it's not like this Warriors of Chaos player has to feel bad about losing a couple magic items, since while it hurts his army performance, it'll be repaid on the actual battlefield when he notices that none of his opponents have similar combos neither, so all is well.

A book is low tier when it literally decides for you, the player, what units must be included in order to stand a chance at winning even a friendly game.

No it's not. That is no definition of effective in any dictionary on earth.

I totally admit variety = fun. WoC has mind-numbing variety. As much as I like Lizardmen, I wouldn't ever get them because I feel they have way too little in terms of variety. I have high hopes for the next release.

If Lizardmen didn't have skink and steggadons and Kroxigors and Terradons and Razordons they would still be effective simply because of a few other units. They would literally have cookie cutter armies, but that wouldn't stop them from beating your face in.

If you want to measure "effectiveness" by the celestial warmth you get in your soul, that's fine, but everyone else on earth measures a game's effectiveness by success. Kicking your teammates in the back of the head in soccer is not effective, even if it makes everyone laugh.

Experiment 626 wrote:


ETC is a team tournament and really shouldn't be used as any kind of measuring stick because it's designed to play a totally different style of game...

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. ETC consists of teams which means that each nation sends X players that play each other (core part, add additional modes). ETC rules are applied to most major tournaments in Europe.

If by "totally different style" you mean "more competitive" then yes, we can agree on it. Normal WHFB games w/o comp consists of a handful of lists that are clearly overpowered whereas ETC allows for a considerably higher variety of lists.

How many ETC tournaments or even tournaments with ETC rules have you actively taken part in to give such a profound verdict?

ETC rules are kind of terribad ...
Not because of balance issues or equivalent, but simply because they stop you from playing WHFB, it's just not the same game at all
I prefer comp systems where you get nasty points when you take evil combos than outright banning of some units/choices
But everyone has a different point of view on those questions

Well for the first time I sat down and really tried to fully and completely understand the ETC commitee's attempt to balance the game.

1st. It overall seems like a good effort which fixes many of the imbalances in army composition. Beastmen, TK, O&G, WE all receive significantly larger point allowances.

2nd. I don't feel it is a completely fixed edition of the game there are still imbalances and problems. Limiting small skink units seems a bit arbitrary.

3rd. Experiment 626. No one else thinks demons are incapable of ever doing anything. Mono Tzeentch is not very good but it is also not horrifically bad. Lighten up a little go out enjoy the sunshine.

JWhex wrote:
Ogre Kingdoms are probably the strongest "point and click" army.

Skaven, WoC, LM, HE, VC, DE are all similar in strength.

+1

I'd say Beastmen, TK and WE are fighting for worst.

Strongest competitively I'd say is probably Skaven. Lizardmen and Dark Elves are good contenders though.

And as for the least, I would say it's between Tomb Kings and WE. I'd be inclined to say TK.

Most Soul Crushing army? Zombiemancer Counts

Strongest I'd say Skaven and weakest I'd say Beastmen.

I play TK mostly, and my hardest match ups are Skaven, Empire(their little bit of everything is better than my little bit of everything) and Wood Elves(My lack of marching gets me bent)

Best matchups Beastmen, VC, High Elves.