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.

Just got back from Adepticon and wanted to take the chance to say I had a great time. The Fantasy tournaments were both well run and I had a great time in both the team and singles events. A pat on the back for all the staffers then and a big thanks to all of my opponents.

Adepticon uses unrestricted rules, correct?

DON'T ANSWER THAT, I don't think Sigvatr's heart can take it!

Quite a few outstanding fantasy armies in the spiky bitzs blog reports.

Yeah they do. And there were some awesome armies!

**The night is cold and stormy**
**Lightning cracks the sky, silhouetting a single, lonely tower**

**Inside, the towers lone occupant slouches in his throne, recumbent as if in deep thought**

**His head lifts, as if sensing a disturbance nearby**
**His hand grasps the hilt of his worn and well-used hammer**

**The figure makes his way to the towers entrance, on his way climbing onto the back of the giant ball-like creature that was lying nearby, all red skin, and teeth**

**With a sharp prod into the creatures haunches, from the stick of its master, powerful legs propel the pair through the door and into the night**


**Sigvatr cackled as the rain hit his face**
"Well Gobba, sumone is youzin uncomped rules tonight! Letz see if we cant get old 'Hammer Ect' bashin an settin em strait!"

And thus ends the current account of the present wielder of 'Hammer Ect', the weapon that was to bring balance and levity to all.









Shame they gave it to a Goblin...

 Tangent wrote:
DON'T ANSWER THAT, I don't think Sigvatr's heart can take it!

I am fine with people not using restrictions and don't judge them. I just cannot consider unrestricted 8th games competitive or rather on the same competitive level as restricted ones due to weak basic rules.

Where was adepticon?

US of A.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
DON'T ANSWER THAT, I don't think Sigvatr's heart can take it!

I am fine with people not using restrictions and don't judge them. I just cannot consider unrestricted 8th games competitive or rather on the same competitive level as restricted ones due to weak basic rules.

Except the ETC doesn't fix the basic rules, they simply make an equally weak and faulty ruleset loosely based on Warhammer.

Its not fixed or better, just different.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Except the ETC doesn't fix the basic rules, they simply make an equally weak and faulty ruleset loosely based on Warhammer.
.

That's incorrect. ETC restrictions *do* fix the basic rules. ETC restrictions do not only consist of restricting certain choices in armies, it also tackels some major problems, mostly magic. You can e.g. only use max 5 dice per spell and even max 4 dice for problematic lores such as Shadow or Death, granting LOS vs. overpowered spells etc. Those are major problems with the BRB and ETC fixes those problems. Therefore, ETC restrictions *do* fix the basic rules.

Fixed as in 1919 World Series?

I don't get it :/

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Except the ETC doesn't fix the basic rules, they simply make an equally weak and faulty ruleset loosely based on Warhammer.
.

That's incorrect. ETC restrictions *do* fix the basic rules. ETC restrictions do not only consist of restricting certain choices in armies, it also tackels some major problems, mostly magic. You can e.g. only use max 5 dice per spell and even max 4 dice for problematic lores such as Shadow or Death, granting LOS vs. overpowered spells etc. Those are major problems with the BRB and ETC fixes those problems. Therefore, ETC restrictions *do* fix the basic rules.

You forgot an important part of that statement "In my opinion.........."

Because guess what you can fix all those things with proper game management.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't get it :/

from wiki

"The 1919 World Series matched the American League champion Chicago White Sox against the National League champion Cincinnati Reds. Although most World Series have been of the best-of-seven format, the 1919 World Series was a best-of-nine series (along with 1903, 1920, and 1921). Baseball decided to try the best-of-nine format partly to increase popularity of the sport and partly to generate more revenue.[1]
The events of the series are often associated with the Black Sox Scandal, when several members of the Chicago franchise conspired with gamblers to throw (i.e., intentionally lose) World Series games. The 1919 World Series was the last World Series to take place without a Commissioner of Baseball in place. In 1920, the various franchise owners installed Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first "Commissioner of Baseball."
In 1921, eight players from the White Sox—including superstar Shoeless Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte—were banned from organized baseball for fixing the series (or having knowledge about the fix)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_World_Series

"The Black Sox Scandal took place during the play of Major League Baseball's 1919 World Series. Eight members of the Chicago White Sox were banned for life from baseball for intentionally losing games, which allowed the Cincinnati Reds to win the World Series. The conspiracy was the brainchild of White Sox first baseman Arnold "Chick" Gandil, who had longstanding ties to petty underworld figures. He persuaded Joseph "Sport" Sullivan, a friend and professional gambler, that the fix could be pulled off. New York gangster Arnold Rothstein supplied the money through his lieutenant Abe Attell, a former featherweight boxing champion."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't get it :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal That should explain what he is referencing. Don't worry we won't blame you no one outside of the USA probably cares anyway.

 captain collius wrote:


You forgot an important part of that statement "In my opinion.........."

Because guess what you can fix all those things with proper game management.

No, I did not forget that. Magic is broken in 8th. Period. Anything that limits its effectiveness improves the rules. "Fixes" them if you want to put it that way.

I knew about the 1919, Wikipedia already helpe me out, but I fail to see the relation to WHFB. If anything, it relates extremely well to vanilla WHFB because GW makes new models overpowered on purpose to sell more of them (e.g. Skullcannon), sounds more like bribing to me :/

I was mostly joking, but I do find it . . .odd that you find that playing by a different set of rules to accommodate a different winner than the written rules would have accommodated is unrelated to fixing a game.

Yeah, myself I play uncomped. Not that it's the best. My opponents know all the rules already though, and don't need to be briefed. My meta here is uncomped, so I understand that if your local yokel pick up games are all playing comped, then it would make sense for you to as well to get more games in.

I do think that the restrictions imposed are not simply "limiting magic" as changing aspects of the game that they find undesirable (such as steadfast mechanic). The limitations on unit sizes etc, # of models with a range < x " etc, are numerous and do a lot more than just limit magic.

When like you have said sig.... GW is pumping out OP models every other month to generate sales... Which is enough BS to keep up with , without adding another layer of rules from a 3rd party... I hate OP magic phases as much as the next guy, but I try to adapt to the fact that they exist by bringing what counters I can, changing unit sizes etc.. I feel that the adaption I have had to make would of been vastly different under a comped system.

I never realized the ETC had a list of like "illegal moves" regarding skirmishers shrinking shenanigans.. not sure it's even theirs, need to find it again..

skyfi wrote:

I never realized the ETC had a list of like "illegal moves" regarding skirmishers shrinking shenanigans.. not sure it's even theirs, need to find it again..

As much as I dislike ETC comp, their document about "worst play" that outlaws unintentional and strange interactions with the rules and geometry of units is really good. The average player probably would not even ever think of some of those tricks.

The ETC doesnt really fix the magic system. They make it harder to get irresistable force and make it harder to cast spells. I think their fix of the magic system is very poorly executed. Instead of just fixing the most broken spells or flat out removing them from the game they try and tweak the whole magic system.

They put all kinds of restrictions on units but all they really needed to do was enable disruption of steadfast by rear and flank charges. In other words they have about 50+ rules that I could condense down to two universal rules.

1) Disruption of steadfast by flank and rear charges

2) Ban spells x, y and z

There is very little that the ETC document "fixes" that my two rules dont fix, and my two rules fix a lot of things that the ETC rules dont fix as well as encouraging more strategic movement and tactics.

Just like people are whining about the khorne cannon in this thread, from reading ETC forum posts you can tell that alot of restrictions are due to the tears of crybabies that couldnt deal with some situation their list wasnt prepared for.

ETC to me reads like "Hey, lets give advantages to the handicapped (no offense meant) so they compete with the non handicapped sportmen." Sure, without restrictions you wont win with Wood Elves too much. Some special chars are over the top but that´s it. Magic can be devastating, so can be a failed roll and reroll for losing combat and woops, my 40BO´s flee and got overrun. gak happens, that´s the game for me. I rather play a game without restrictions than being fooled into something that sounds like "a fair game". If I want to play powerlists I dont come with my O&G themed army. What I can understand is banning teclis but besides him I never try to restrict something for my opponent. On the other hand I rarely try to squeeze out the most competitive list possible out of my armies because they are usually boring to play. I play themed armies or high risk high rewards ones. Last but not least there is that rule that is written in every rulebook since the dawn of Warhammer "Have fun" that rule is one most competitive players tend to overlook at least what I can tell from the few tournaments I took part of back in the days. I like to win because I did better not because I found a loophole, tricked my opponent or played something broken. That´s - at least to me - not competitive at all, that´s just re#tarded since competitive means to me playing fair and respect your opponent/-s.

Except they also gimp the powerful. So in reality they end up with a flipped balance, not an even one.

ETC changes Warhammer. It doesn't "fix it"

You want to plat ETC Hammer, go ahead. You can't handle the game without restrictions, fine. I like it the way it is.

TCWarRoom wrote:
ETC changes Warhammer. It doesn't "fix it"

You want to plat ETC Hammer, go ahead. You can't handle the game without restrictions, fine. I like it the way it is.

Well it fixes warhammer in the same sense that you "fix" your pet male dog.


FYI for non-native English speakers, that is American idiom for cutting your dog's balls off to neuter him.

Except instead of cutting off the family jewels, the ETC hacks off his rear legs and installs an electric shocker to keep him from mating.

I've never played under ETC, but from the document it appears that you would be pushed towards a magic light/medium approach, using multiple units of 20-40 guys, and not that much shooting. This suggests that ETC are actually trying to ensure that they get armies that looks like GW battle reports - 3 x 20 blocks, 1 x 40 block, some chaff, some skirmishers, etc.

 kirsanth wrote:
I was mostly joking, but I do find it . . .odd that you find that playing by a different set of rules to accommodate a different winner than the written rules would have accommodated is unrelated to fixing a game.

While I want the core rules of WHFB to be different than they currently are, I'm kind-of in this camp, as well. The game isn't "broken." It works as-is. It may not work the way a single individual would prefer, but simply changing the rules only changes WHFB into a DIFFERENT game. You can make the argument all day long that YOUR version of WHFB is "better" than GW's, but that's your opinion. You hit the nail on head with this, Sigvatr, when you said, "Anything that limits the effectiveness of magic IMPROVES the rules." A person who likes a game where magic decides the winner would not consider your changes to be improvements.

I might even go so far as to make the controversial statement that the only person who can "fix" a "broken" game is the original designer or design team, as a game isn't broken unless it's not working as the designers intended.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
I've never played under ETC, but from the document it appears that you would be pushed towards a magic light/medium approach, using multiple units of 20-40 guys, and not that much shooting. This suggests that ETC are actually trying to ensure that they get armies that looks like GW battle reports - 3 x 20 blocks, 1 x 40 block, some chaff, some skirmishers, etc.

Pretty much, yes. ETC restrictions work towards allowing a greater variety of lists and it works. A lot of people in here simply have never played on a ETC competitive level and thus, no offense, their opinion is pretty much void. It took time for even experienced players to get used to the matches as vanilla WHFB 8th is terrible balance-wise in some regards. Magic is broken. Period. If you're denying that, you are wrong, there's no "opinion" in it. Same goes for the Khorne cannon - it's undercosted. Period.

ETC strives to dampen the balance spikes introduced in 8th and furthermore tries to balance some armies out e.g. by adding points to the maximum points allowance or reducing the % of VP you score.

The thing is that I'm not saying that WHFB w/ restrictions is better for everyone, some people also like Storm of Magic which is as uncompetitive as it gets. What people simply do not see is that ETC is highly focused at creating a competitive experience. Winning the game by blindly spamming overpowered spells is not competitive, it's poor balance. Same goes for a lot of Steadfast units or taking win-buttons such as Double Slanns. ETC tournaments, when having a look at the lists, have a MUCH wider variety of viable choices or lists compared to vanilla, uncomped WHFB games simply because some troll options / lists are no longer possible.

You don't have to like it, it's a different experience. It's extremely competitive and certainly more competitive than any vanilla tournament could ever be. Sorry lads, if you can't stand the heat, don't get into ETC

j/k. If the game is fun for you, don't change anything and just play. That's the point. If you prefer vanilla games, do so. Noone stops you from enjoying them, I certainly do not want to do so either. My point is that ETC has a lot of positive feedback and makes for much greater variety of lists. I consider it the peak of actually competitve WHFB and I wouldn't even think about applying for a vanilla tournament again due it being so stale.

I don't really know why you think your opinion is more valid than that of anyone who disagrees with you. I can only assume your use of the word "broken" is supposed to be analogous to "overpowered." In this case, if you think that magic is, by far, the strongest "thing" in the game, I would agree. Magic is pretty strong, and is probably stronger than every other individual element in the game.

And so, if the statement that you're ACTUALLY making (when you say "magic is broken and it's not my opinion") is that magic is stronger than other elements, then you're right (though, even THAT is really your opinion, too). But what is NOT a fact is that limiting magic's effectiveness "improves" the rules - THAT is DEFINITELY your opinion. It's a subjective judgment you're making here, not an objective one.

This now sounds like you are saying something akin to asserting that folk playing MtG need to learn that Two-Headed-Giant is the real way to play, and everyone playing other variants do so because they cannot deal with true competitiveness.

It is somewhat mind boggling but not really surprising.