[Archive] ETC's bans Chaos dwarves

Grimbold Blackhammer:

Beastmen can do fine with the boost but honestly, I think in the Tomb Kings case, that’s just more victory points for them to lose. Low armour and swinging last is just a losing proposition in Warhammer…

Grimbold Blackhammer

Thommy H:

Haha, they give armies they decide aren’t that good 200 extra points to spend? Retarded.

GodHead:

The whole ETC is. Unfortunately, it is very popular, as stupid things often are.

Satan:


Haha, they give armies they decide aren't that good 200 extra points to spend? Retarded.


Thommy H
Having participated in tournaments using ETC standards I find that statement rather Retarded.

It's a fun alternative to no-holds barred games. And the beasts sorely need those extra 200 points against good players.

I seriously don't get all the hate against the ETC, I mean, where do people find the energy to be annoyed at rules restrictions...

Thommy H:

I’m not annoyed - I didn’t even know about this particular rule until two hours ago when I made that post. I have literally no interest in how anyone plays any Warhammer tournaments, but my main issue whenever I have the misfortune to stumble across any of the ETC restrictions is that I don’t understand why a group of unpaid enthusiasts get off on thinking they know better than the guys who are paid to actually write the games. I’m not saying the rules-as-written are flawless, but I’m pretty much always going to trust something written by a professional in a nicely presented book rather than the opinions of a bunch of guys who spend their time arguing about Warhammer on the internet.

Sorry, this kind of gaming is not my bag, and I don’t think it makes for a fairer game - as the statement that the alternative is “no holds barred” implies. Warhammer already has an internal balance thanks to points costs and unit selections and all the rest of it. I think introducing further, often seemingly arbitrary, restrictions actually breeds the opposite attitude: because people think all the balancing work is done for them by the organisers already, they think anything they can put in their lists is automatically fair and balanced. Never mind that it’s often the other stuff that ETC has taken out that is designed as a balance for some of those things (like the big auto-kill spells being the counter to deathstars) thus skewing the whole system in the opposite direction.

I don’t know. I don’t really get “balance” in Warhammer because I’ve never played a game that was automatically a waste of time because it was one-sided. I don’t care about winning. It’s inane. I played a game today that was a total massacre (in my favour) and everyone involved had a perfectly good time because, you know, it’s fun to play Warhammer pretty much whatever happens, right? That’s why we all do this. No one’s making anyone play. But if winning’s what you’re into then fill your boots, I just reserve the right to think it’s all a bit weird.

French_noodle:

I totally agree with you Thommy H., but sadly, the “hey it’s serious, we are playing !” syndrome is pretty strong in these days.

I can see it everyday, most of players in clubs or shops are playing this way. It is strange, and pretty frightening.

And for this reason, i don’t try tornaments neither. It’s too much full of people building armies only for victory, and not laughing much during the game…

Thommy H:

I don’t want to categorise all tournament gamers as being that way though - Baggronor is a very successful and enthusiastic tournament goer, for example, but all of his armies are beautifully painted and converted and he demonstrably approaches the hobby with the correct amount of irreverence and relaxation. But yeah, it’s crazy to me how heated things can get and how much people seem to come at Warhammer like it’s a competitive exercise. And then that’s the attitude that brands something as “broken” because you were beaten by it in one game, and thinks that “balanced” means you win every game, despite the obvious contradiction this creates. Recently on Warseer, someone was talking about the LoA list in Tamurkhan and said they’d found it completely fair after winning twenty out of twenty games with it, and they weren’t even being ironic.

richard barby:

on the ban it would be good to see chaos dwarfs at ETC i still think there are heaps of people who dont have much exposure to chaos dwarfs and i think the more places that use them the better.

on the comp side of it lifes not fair cap a few things like double rairs, no twin level 4s cap sizes units at 500 points and let people go for it you dont need to keep out much its still a game

rabotak:

Recently on Warseer, someone was talking about the LoA list in Tamurkhan and said they'd found it completely fair after winning twenty out of twenty games with it, and they weren't even being ironic.

Thommy H
that was me and you totally missed the point of that post and you are now taking an incorrect quote out of context. i don't know if you had actually read that thread before having replied, at that point of discussion it was all about the LoA not being competitive without double mcs and destroyer (therefore poorly balanced- either go OP or lose big time) while my point was that you could still win and be competitive while using the poorer options- it was never my point to state this was my view of balance. it might have been that since i'm not a native english speaker that i was mistaken, but thats why i clarified my post afterwards.
please take your time and reread, things like this tend to get annoying.

Baggronor:

Its generally my view that comp is totally unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and is often actually detrimental to balance.

For example: a lot of places cap unit sizes at 40, primarily to stop Bloodletter hordes and Skavenslaves hogging the top tables. But this then inadvertently nerfs troops like Goblins, who need to be fielded 40+ to be worthwhile. So then they write in an exception for one or two armies, and then one or two others get more points to play with and before you know it you’re playing a completely different game. It just creates as many problems as it fixes. The reason I actually love the Throne of Skulls is that it doesn’t have any of that, and its always been just as fun.

Whatever you do, there is always going to be something that seems overpowered or whatever - there is usually a way to beat it too. That’s all part of the fun.

But yeah, it’s crazy to me how heated things can get and how much people seem to come at Warhammer like it’s a competitive exercise.
Crushing these epeen-fixated little dweebs with a well-painted hobbyist’s army can be so very, very satisfying though :wink:

Aldhick:

I don't understand why a group of unpaid enthusiasts get off on thinking they know better than the guys who are paid to actually write the games. I'm not saying the rules-as-written are flawless, but I'm pretty much always going to trust something written by a professional in a nicely presented book rather than the opinions of a bunch of guys who spend their time arguing about Warhammer on the internet.

Thommy H
I'm sorry for being new here and start off with this one, but I cannot hold it.
  Thommy, let me ask you - were you paid by GW when you were puting together your fan book? If not, are you saying then, that it is not worth opening it and we should stick to Ravening hordes (ok, LoA by now)? Don't take me wrong, I dig your book, but can't understand, how someone who made such effort can write such things...

Thommy H:

Well my book isn’t presented as a replacement for anything GW themselves have written - I wouldn’t put it forward as an improvement, only an alternative. The ETC guys are saying, implicitly, that the rules-as-written don’t provide a fun and balanced game so they, The Internet, need to step in and fix it.

I don’t think that’s the same thing as writing something (mostly) original for my own satisfaction. And I’d never suggest my ideas are inherently better than the published ones, even if I personally prefer what I’ve put together because, by definition, I did it how I thought it should be done.

Rabotak: I apologise if I took what you said out of context. I wasn’t intending to quote anyone here, just give an anecdotal example of the sort of attitude I was talking about, but obviously I misrepresented your opinions. I didn’t follow the thread on Warseer after I posted in it but clearly I should have if I intended to use it later as evidence of anything. Mea culpa.

aka_mythos:

Well I think its just the reality that alot of gamers feel GW’s games aren’t balanced. That GW’s rules skew towards the newest armies. So I don’t see anything wrong when those gamers attempt to balance out the different armies to create a more balanced environment with less power creep. This group only has “authority” because they’re organizing it and in the past people have enjoyed it.

Thommy, I think you’d agree with me on this point, its about having fun and this type of set up is fun for some.

Thommy H:

aka_mythos: if that’s their assertion then their efforts are justifiable or even admirable. I simply take issue with how valid that initial assertion is.

tvandyke:

I don't understand why a group of unpaid enthusiasts get off on thinking they know better than the guys who are paid to actually write the games. I'm not saying the rules-as-written are flawless, but I'm pretty much always going to trust something written by a professional in a nicely presented book rather than the opinions of a bunch of guys who spend their time arguing about Warhammer on the internet.

Thommy H
I'll take a stab at this quote as well. I used to be a part of a group of outside play testers. One of my buddies used to write for GW (mainly rules for Mordheim). He'd (as would other play testers) get a copy of the army book rules months before release. He made sure none of us made copies, etc, of the rules but he needed us to play the games. We'd write our comments on what we thought was good, what wasn't, what was overpriced, under priced, completely broken, etc. The last book we play tested was the Daemons of Chaos. Almost every play tester felt the book was horrible in terms of being over powered (not just our group but my buddy talked on a forum with the other play testers). It was wiping the floor with every other army. All these comments got sent to Matt Ward (Daemon book author). He ignored all most all of them. GW ended outside playtesting shortly thereafter. The playtesters were told there were too many leaks (probably true, it had been a problem for years, but the outside playtesting was thought to be too valuable to end). I know the Daemon book was the nail in the coffin for a lot of players when it came to them decidingto quit playing Warhammer.

As a tournament player, I can tell you without a doubt, that the army books aren't play tested all that well. The guys in the studio aren't really looking for ways to bend and abuse the rules or looking for nasty, insane combos. The playing community has a knack for it. The ETC is simply a bunch of guys trying to fix what the so called "professionals" failed to do. I certainly don't agree with all their rule decisions, but if the designers in the studio tried as hard to balance the books as these guys do (and a lot of tournament organizers do through comp), then there wouldn't be a need for it. You could certainly say this is only a problem for those that play in tournaments, but it doesn't change the fact that this game is designed around a point system. Two 2000 point armies facing each other, for the most part, should be an evenly fought match, but in a lot of cases, this simply isn't true. The Tournament circuit definitely exposes which armies or items are balanced and which ones aren't. There's never going to be perfect balance for the simple reason if there was, every army would be identical (we don't want chess here), but there's definitely room to smooth the edges a little on the extreme imbalances that are found.

Thommy H:

And yet, most people seem to agree that the newest books - the ones written since this outside playtesting embargo began - are more balanced and fun than the 7th Edition books. While I agree Daemons were an aberration, I still maintain the system is not as broken as the received wisdom of the internet insists. In the world of Warseer and sites like it, normal background levels of defeat are often magnified into game-breaking imbalances. If things were half as bad as they look by reading the rantings of the online vocal minority, no one would ever bother playing Warhammer at all!

togo:

There are 2 CD players in the upcoming ETC Warmup next week in Germany.We will see how they are doing in this area and maybe it will be discussed for the ETC.

tvandyke:

And yet, most people seem to agree that the newest books - the ones written since this outside playtesting embargo began - are more balanced and fun than the 7th Edition books. While I agree Daemons were an aberration, I still maintain the system is not as broken as the received wisdom of the internet insists. In the world of Warseer and sites like it, normal background levels of defeat are often magnified into game-breaking imbalances. If things were half as bad as they look by reading the rantings of the online vocal minority, no one would ever bother playing Warhammer at all!

Thommy H
Outsiding playtesting ended almost 4 years ago (2008). There were a few 7th edition books that came out after that that weren't considered balanced at all. Skaven and Dark Elves come to mind. Skaven was written with 8th editition on the horizon (probably written as an 8th edition book), but it was a nightmare to play against while it was still be played during 7th. I'll agree that the 8th edition books seem to be better balanced than the books that came out towards the end of 7th, however, there's still some old books that are struggling in 8th (Wood Elves for example). Daemons were definitely an aberration in that the whole list was broken. Typically, it's a few magic items, a unit, monster or combination that earns a bad reputation. Some armies have more than others. I'll give you one example. There's been an obvious inclusion in every army book since the Dark Elves were released to have a big, moderately priced, nasty monster in the rare section. The first was the Hydra. For 175 points it was easily the best priced monster in the game. At least until Skaven got the Abomination. As long as every army has something like that it's fine, but if you were playing Warriors of Chaos for example, you were left with a Shaggoth that cost twice as much and was half as effective.

I don't want to speak for every tournament organizer, but for the most part, their goal is to do what they can to make everyone's experience as enjoyable as possible. When they implement a comp system their goal isn't to anger the player base, they're usually just trying to nudge players towards a more balanced list. It's usually something like this: "we don't care if you bring one Hydra, but if you bring two your going to lose points", "we don't care if you bring one steam tank, but don't bring two", "oh, look at that, this player brought this really crappy unit for fluff reasons only, he's going to get rewarded with a good comp score". The ETC is different in that they don't allow the player base to make those decisions, they're doing it for them. Most comp systems may allow you to bring two Hydras, but you'll get knocked down in points if you do. The ETC simply won't allow it.

The Besieger:

I don't understand why a group of unpaid enthusiasts get off on thinking they know better than the guys who are paid to actually write the games. I'm not saying the rules-as-written are flawless, but I'm pretty much always going to trust something written by a professional in a nicely presented book rather than the opinions of a bunch of guys who spend their time arguing about Warhammer on the internet.

Thommy H
I'm sorry for being new here and start off with this one, but I cannot hold it.
  Thommy, let me ask you - were you paid by GW when you were puting together your fan book? If not, are you saying then, that it is not worth opening it and we should stick to Ravening hordes (ok, LoA by now)? Don't take me wrong, I dig your book, but can't understand, how someone who made such effort can write such things...  


Aldhick
And who are you?Only joining this forum to flame Thommy H?
Thx to the ppl like Thommy H and loooots other ppl on this forum
it was posible to still play our old CD army for manny years.
For me a ETC tournament is not a official warhammer tournament.
We see more and more ppl on forums that stop following the ETC tournaments
and start dislike the ETC idea.
Also in real life i see more ppl saying that the stop with the ETC idea.

GodHead:

And who are you?Only joining this forum to flame Thommy H?
Thx to the ppl like Thommy H and loooots other ppl on this forum
it was posible to still play our old CD army for manny years.
For me a ETC tournament is not a official warhammer tournament.
We see more and more ppl on forums that stop following the ETC tournaments
and start dislike the ETC idea.
Also in real life i see more ppl saying that the stop with the ETC idea.

horlely
He did not flame him. Not even a little.

Also, F the ETC.