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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Calling magic broken is plain wrong. Some old army books magic is somewhat too strong yes but magic isnt broken as it reads there. Magic in 8th is super strong yes and therefor too strong combined with some old armybooks lizzy and he pops to mind. Steadfast isnt that harsh when you have a 8th armybook and using magic or use a 8th armybook with more options than just magic. That the skullcannon is too strong is discussable at least so I wont go into this.
And that´s it pretty much. As long as not every book is a n 8th book we will have armies who are just too strong or too weak but that doesnt make the BRB a broken book or the 8th a broken edition. Since end of 4th, really started with 5th edition there was always something "broken" but since 5th some would say 6th it´s never the BRB it´s the old armybook that doesnt fit anymore. ETC is just another kind of houseruling to me like "we make warhammer playable the way we want it" it has nothing to do with making warhammer more competitive. The term itself is not really fitting for warhammer as a whole since the rules/armybooks are so far away from fitting into a competitive system that you cant really claim it. But that´s a nitpicking sidenote from somone who played chess on a competitive level

The people claiming ETC rules make warhammer more competitive than warhammer played by other rules really make me laugh at their inability to see beyond their own nose.

What makes ANY game competitive is the skill level of the players. The ETC players that say they are more competitive than other players are just astoundingly and arrogantly claiming to be the best players in the world of warhammer.

The idea that the rules are what makes the ETC environment the most competitive is a joke and anyone taking this position doesnt know the first thing about competition in any arena. Lets take professional football rules and compare competition AMONG professional and high school teams if they both used the exact same rules. I gaurantee you the pro games are more competitive. Now lets take those same rules and have matches between high school and professional teams, you think that will be competitive? Sigvtar's logic says yes because its all about the rules.

The ETC players that claim there system makes their games more competitive are essentially saying they are the pros and we are the plebes.

Sigvtar's repeated assertion that anything that weakens magic makes the game better shows how much of the ETC kool aid he has consumed. Elements of the magic system are broken and certain armies have items or abilities that give them an unfair advantage. From that, one cannot credibly say "anything that weakens the magic system is good".

However, raising or lowering the toughness of a unit by 1 point is not broken or OP but it can play a critical role if you get it off for the right combat. A lot of the magic buffs can make for a good game and how and when you get a relatively minor buff off can have an important tactical result.

I am sure there are many excellent players in the ETC environment but warhammer is not that challenging of a game and does not require immense tactical skill to get good at. It doesnt exactly have a steep learning curve. From reading the ETC restrictions however, one does not come away feeling that those rules are the work of a genius, not by a long shot. It looks like any document made by a lot of authors with many different agendas, and indeed that is exactly how it is born.

Hmm, this seems to have strayed from the original intent of the post...

My own two cents is that I don't really care what comp people want to play in. It's their choice and I don't necessarily think any kind of restrictions are better than any other. They all have their own merits. I've played in multiple different comp systems myself and enjoyed them all.

My only gripe with Adepticon was the way in which sports was scored - favorite opponent votes played a massive role in determining final scores (were worth half a battle worth of points! so had a huge effect!).

JWhex wrote:

However, raising or lowering the toughness of a unit by 1 point is not broken or OP but it can play a critical role if you get it off for the right combat. A lot of the magic buffs can make for a good game and how and when you get a relatively minor buff off can have an important tactical result.

I just use your post as an example for a post I consider having 0 valid points - you obviously never played with ETC restrictions and did not understand them either. I assume you had a quick look at them and then thought they were trash. You therefore come from a point of view that has absolutely no valid base to go on from and therefore, I don't see how I could argue with you.

In regards to your special point: when was the last time you rolled 6 dice to get a +1 T spell off?

Think about that.

 John Rainbow wrote:
Hmm, this seems to have strayed from the original intent of the post...

My own two cents is that I don't really care what comp people want to play in. It's their choice and I don't necessarily think any kind of restrictions are better than any other. They all have their own merits. I've played in multiple different comp systems myself and enjoyed them all.

I fully agree

My only gripe with Adepticon was the way in which sports was scored - favorite opponent votes played a massive role in determining final scores (were worth half a battle worth of points! so had a huge effect!).

I like it having so much impact, but it's a very debated issue. It works very well most of the time; e.g. last tournament, one guy was really rude and disrespectful yet scored more points than rank 2, due to sportsmanship, however, he lost overall and did not win the tournament. That's how it should work imo The problem is people showing up with friends or people giving others max points just because they got a weak army list.

In smaller tournaments, to balance the friends issue out, it's 1/3 sportsmanship and 2/3 actual points which I prefer.

 John Rainbow wrote:
Hmm, this seems to have strayed from the original intent of the post...

Back on topic then...

What army won the tournament? What did you play and where did you place?

Man, Adepticon really sucks when it comes to results...is it so hard to make an additional row for "Army" right next to the player's name ? -_-

I placed something like 70th on BPs, paint and sports. I won 3 out of 5 which was my target - nothing like mid-table obscurity! I got 22/25 for paint and 37/40 for sports. Overall I finished 104th due to not getting a favorite opponent vote - hence my feeling that it was weighted too heavily. I did reasonably well (at least won more than I lost!), got very decent sports scores but not getting a vote for favorite opponent cost me 30ish places and made my results seem much, much worse. It also allowed a number of players with lower battle scores to leapfrog me. For instance, the player who got the highest sports score (multiple favorite votes) almost scored more in sports than I did in BPs due to the way it was weighted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would've liked to see 'army' up there too. I know one of the top ones (got one of the prizes) was a WoC list without a DP. He had a Lord with the 3++, reroll 1s on a daemonic mount.