Play 8th Edition WFB with no changes & Peer Comp

[wouster7]

I'm up early and thought I'd check the Aussies WFB Tournament scene. What I discovered is that tournaments are either one or the other of the two below.

1. No Changes or restrictions and Special Characters allowed

2. Simple lite Army specific restrictions (looks to be about 40% of what ETC restrictions are at present.) a peer comp structure (are we in the dark ages again).

Would you rather we have what we play:-

3. ETC restrictions or minor adjusted ETC restrictions.

I'd really like to hear what people think and what they would prefer.

Nb: I would like your opinion but if you take the piss then don't worry I'll for a change reciprocate

[Chaoswolf]

A healthy blend of 1 and 3 would be good, the scene is heavily weighted to ETC style hardcaps (which is fine) and thank god there's none of the tourney-by-tourney list peer comp scoring (that I've seen).

But I know I would enjoy some no-holds barred tournaments, bring the toys! Sure, there's silly stuff, but if you know silly is on the cards, then you can bring your own, or come to terms with fact you could have but didn't. People get precious about what they think is fair, but even hard caps are a form of pre-match peer comp.

Take the trainer wheels off once and a while.

I only paint for tournament reasons these days, how else will Kairos get painted hrm? 

[Frosty]

I have not played at a lot of tournaments but my gut feeling is that option (2) and (3) are the way to go.

This is mostly because I play Orc's and Goblins and I could not imagine taking them to a tournament with no hard caps or restrictions. I might be wrong here because of my inexperience but I just don't think my Orc's would be competitive at all in that kind of environment? Consequently if there was no realistic possibility that I could actually win a game (irrespective of how well I played or how well the dice fell) ...This would naturally suck all the fun out of the tournament for me as a player 

But, I am not saying that (No holds barred) tournaments don't have a place and I am sure a lot of people would love to play in that environment, it is  just not for me or my Orc's. After having said all that I would probably have a much different opinion if I played with a demon army   
 

[richardbarby]

i think capping unit sizes is one of the biggest comp factors at a tournie.I only read the etc pack once andi may be wrong about a few things but they had caps on the unit size going from its points cost for a single modle the higher the cost for 1 the smaller the unit could be. a lot of units are good no matter the size but just as many under 8th are better in bigger units and can go from game average units to game winning units

 blacks orcs are good example of a unit that is better at a bigger size

[warpmaster]

Lite comp is the way to go.Having to many restriction just hurts the game down the line

[richardbarby]

Lite comp is the way to go.Having to many restriction just hurts the game down the line

+1

[pukeko]

Well i would like to see option 1 but with no special characters
 What i would like to see also is different scenarios being used as i think they also test your skills
 
 As more armies get changed to 8th ed books they should start balancing out

 blacks orcs are good example of a unit that is better at a bigger size

 Orc biguns are a better choice in a big size  lol 

 

[Ugrat]

The fewer changes the better
Some army restrictions are warranted ie 0-1 hydras or 0-1 abombs, but I find others are a leftover from 7th eg what is the problem with 2 screaming skull catapults??? they cant fire twice now and many other armys can easily take 2+ catapults eg OnG, Empire, Dwarfs

TLOS. this needs to be used. 8th is designed (models included) with TLOS as a mechanic.

ETC archer restriction rule is retarded in the least. Its there to mitigate gun lines but instead promotes some armies to be far superior. A shot from a dwarf handgunner is not the same as a shot from a TK archer. A better restiction would be based on a combination of BS and shots fired, or an army specific restriction. You cant tell me the 10 shades is as good as 20 TK archers???

Special characters are an interesting proposition. All the ones from the 3 new books seam completly fair and balanced, but I dont think I would like to attend a tourney with teclis spam etc.

Oh and no to a peer comp system. Thats just the road to abuse. Hard caps is my preferance 

I would like to see something like the follwoing: (pritty much the Pete light system)

Core: no restrictions
Special: max 2 of any 1 choice (maybe even no restrictions)
Rare: One double rare, max 1 of all other choices.
Max 12 pd per phase
max 4 war machines/template weapons etc
A limit on shooting, but maybe army based or BS based

+ army restrictions ie 0-1 rares on skaven, dark elf/slann magic item combo,

[wouster7]

Heres my current thoughts:

GW have started to release some very well balanced books recently and it looks to be a good thing for the community if this trend continues. Only having three new books of note and with so many older books still out there it will still be a long way off before we can honestly say we can stop using restrictions. (I was going to say comp but that implies peer or panel comp which I think is just antiquated and unintuitive).

Although I'm in agreement of a lite set of guidelines, I tend to find that extreme lite (false diet tips) tends to miss the intentions of levelling the field. This just falls into the same category of Panel/peer comp and a almost not there set of cursory like liquid polish to disguise and fool participants that something is getting done. With these systems the hard armies get in without being restrained and the soft armies get put on the field with a paper shield and a bit of encouragement. That's why I'm all in favour of ETC restrictions as its a comprehensive look at the hobby from a international view point and everything is covered. I also view the restrictions as lite as you can go.

Some discussion on points that have been raised here.

Kudos to players out there willing to attend a whats called 'Hard Boys' style tournament where anything and everything goes. I am looking to do something like this down the line but you guys have to realise that if it were to go ahead there would probable be about 5-6 armies that would attend and probably only truely 3 that could end up with the trophy. 7th edition has breed a caution to most tournament scenes and has somewhat psychologicall y burdened some army generals who still haven't shaken it off yet. I sympathise with my Daemon brother out there as it seems that theres talk that HE with great weapons are extremely over powered now (get real and get an education).

I have seen some warmachine heavy armies out in place of the classical bow & shooter gunlines in 8th. With the advent of no guess range weapons if you don't roll a 1 (misfire) you dominate your opponent. The double rock lobber, screaming catapult goodness is in my view still to be avoided. The massive kill potential (good odds) and the abillity to panic a unit and in effect take that unit out of the game for two turns (small odds increasing to medium odds depending on Ld) is something to still be concerned enough to include in restrictions.

Having a shooting cap in ETC is intuitive and probably at first glance not so fair and all army book encompassing. With a overall look at shooting numbers which invariable will also be combined with warmachine numbers we can see why shooting numbers are capped. Armies having access to warmachines also to support shooting that isn't reliant on ballistic skill certainly makes the look and make up of shooting caps a lot more understandable . Dwarfs for example have good shooting but their points cost reflects this and overall will limit their inclusion in a list. where as Gob shooting is way less effective but they cost a lot less and both armies have access to warmachines also with differing points costs which would reflect on the over shooting phase. Having a shooting cap based on Ballistic skill of the army would be counter intuitive as this would not reflect an overall picture of what the cap is designed for which I think is to levell the shooting phase in context of the game. ETC caps have broken their restrictions up to cover all the three important phase of the game (magic,shooting, and combat) which I think is a thorough document.

More thoughts would be very appreciated...  

[Rasputin]

But do you need specific caps ...... many moons ago there was one rule, if you produced an army that the TO ( or panel of judges if that is your will ) decided was not going to create an enjoyable game you got told to make another one .....

The problem with hard caps is that, as soon as they are known the aim becomes to build the most broken list that still conforms to the said restrictions. If the rule was dont build a tosser army then more players would probably err on the side of caution.

just saying 

[warpmaster]

The ETC shooting cap of 45 is shit IMO Phil .It just mean no one is going to take wood elfs.IMO Woodies need archery badly to make them compeditive and limiting their only strong piont (shooting) is madness

[Ugrat]

Sorry but I dont buy your artillery argument Phil
Under a no double rare restrictions
Orcs and Goblins can take 2 catapults
Dwarfs can take 2
Empire can take 3++
TK can take 1
Brets can take 1
Chaos 1
Skaven 1+
etc

Thats not to mention all the other artillery that some armies can take as well as
How is that fair and balanced? Out of all those armies, Brets and TK are the two who most need something higher strengthed to handle some nastys
As for the template part, its mostly st3 (tk)... not a big deal. Not compared to the standard dwarf st5 re-rollablable misfire ones.
On top of that, there is also generally a restiction of max 4 template/warmachines, so this means (to take an extreme) empire rocks up with 2 mortars, a cannon and a helstrom rocket (not uncommon), and TK can bring 1 catapult....

And that leads into archery. I agree with warpy the 45 shot limit biases armies like dark elves and dwarfs over others. I also agree with you a BS skill based restriction would not address everything fairly. A combination of range and BS maybe?
Theres amies like skaven and lizardmen who can get double allowance of shots (due to being under 18" range). Taking into account that they can march and fire (not to mention posion) which basically just adds 12" to thier effective missle range, they become the most deadly archers within the hard comp restrictions with the potential to do up to 90 24-30" range shots. Goblins dont stack up to this either...

Some armies rely on core archers such as woodies and tk. Restricting these options limits the player to 1 or 2 viable builds to remain competitve and reduces the fun for all by bringing the "standard" tourney build.

Another alternative would be to restrict the amount of missle troops that can be chosen from the specials and rares sections, and have no restrictions of core missle troops. Say 10-20 special/rare missle shots restriction?

At the end of the day, an army that can bring 45 st4 ap shots will always out preform an army that has 45 st3 in the shooting phase regardless of the points spent on said units.

Of note ETC restrictions allow for double rares of most artillery.

[hebejebus]

note darkies can only take 35 shooters

imo etc restrictions are there to encourage certain types of play,
it is true that these restrictions do stop certain build types on some armies but if all armies were the same then why have different armies?
woodelves did well at etc and Nick has been proving they do well on our scene aswell, so i dont quite understand the need for more than 45 archers?
i think TO discretion should be avoided unless we could get a national panel or something which would take alot of time and effort.
because it is impossible to be completely unbiased on lists, and most TOs base there decisions on there own past experiences based on what armies they play, and based off the current scene around where they play.

so why not go with a tried set of restrictions like ETC with slight changes based on the new zealand scene

most players will reflect on restrictions based on how it affects them and there army instead of looking at the whole picture and TBH who can look at the whole picture without being biased.

ETC seems to me quite intuitive, you can look at each restriction and see where they are coming from.
and under these restrictions can anyone say that any specific army cant beat another?
its all going to be situational under these restrictions too, some may say but hey look Dark Elf on average scored the most points at ETC
but thats a totally different situation where match's can be pre determined by captains etc, and maybe dark elf just had better match ups, not to mention the amount of MSU that is played there where as how many msu armies do you see at nz tournaments?

can anyone go through those ETC lists and say hey i cant deal with that? if so post what you play and the list you cant deal with?

just my thoughts and opinions anyway

[Ugrat]

note darkies can only take 35 shooters

well, not exactly.
they can take 35 (max) repeater xbows, so get 70 ap shots

If the ETC system is a well thought out balanced hard cap system, why do people further restrict it?

[hebejebus]

imo due to there own bias of what they think is even, which could quite possibly be right or wrong.  Its not like there's a mathematical formula under a hundred pages to work it out.
but why not just stick to ETC which has massive peer review? unless someone is willing to do the 100 pages and do their thesis on it lol

i mean no matter what you do there will be people that wont be happy

[Rasputin]

But why do we need one set of restrictions to rule them all ? Why not have this tournament fully unrestricted, this one heavily restricted and this one lightly restricted .... from what I have observed we seem to be stuck in the similar restrictions, 2400 points mindset ....

[hebejebus]

very good point, i attended the tauranga no comp,equinox,nicon,ott,tin soldier and gaurdcon and the fact that it was different restrictions at every tournament definitely spiced the year up for me.

although id have to say anything under 2400 pts just dosnt really do it for me would love to see some larger point tournaments

[Placator]

I agree, there is plenty of scope for any type of tournament. whatever the format, points etc.

However I think TO's try and make a system that is fair for all and will receive a good turnout of participants with fun games. Personally I think some form of caps system to be the best as any sort of peer comp review often is to arbitrary.

[nik_]

woodelves ... Nick has been proving they do well on our scene aswell, so i dont quite understand the need for more than 45 archers?

If only it were true
I don't take more than 45 archers because a) I don't like such 1 dimensional armies, and 2) I don't have the models
I do think that one of the more competitive builds out there is the archer heavy variety.
In general I'm happy to live with the restriction on MY shooting so I don't have to deal with too much of YOUR shooting, but I do feel hard done by when my 45 average shots stacks up against your 20 shades! They're not really comparable

[warpmaster]

I don't take more than 45 archers because a) I don't like such 1 dimensional armies,

But really its just another build that you have the option of doing.More arrows in your quiver so to speak

but I do feel hard done by when my 45 average shots stacks up against your 20 shades! They're not really comparable

+1

Even 45 DE Xbows will out class WD archers shooting wise in alot of ways

[Ugrat]

I don't take more than 45 archers because a) I don't like such 1 dimensional armies,

But really its just another build that you have the option of doing.More arrows in your quiver so to speak

but I do feel hard done by when my 45 average shots stacks up against your 20 shades! They're not really comparable

+1

Even 45 DE Xbows will out class WD archers shooting wise in alot of ways

Would you think unrestricted core archers and a cap on special/rare archers would address this?

[Chaoswolf]

Dark Elves are just stupid, defending them is a waste of time and respectiblilit y. Vote Daemons!

And I don't think 80 archers on the board who aren't special address this, because then it's about who can drop the enemy's toughness by 3, and use magic to stack your numerical advantage of archers.

Besides, Dark Elves have regular crossbowmen, who will of course fire 160 shots.

[pete dunn]

Fan of full rules and minimal comp.

Rules

There are a couple of rules loopholes - reform into building being the most obvious - that should be mitigated.

However don't agree with removing things like conga lines or changing the nature of spells- see them as a valid response to someone loading 1000-1800 points into a unit e.g. Ogres, Lizards, Vampires, WoC.

Don't agree with the ETC approach (rules) outside of ETC style events - multiple cultures, language differences - where significant rules changes are made.

Believe the game should be played with scenarios and some terrain effects.

Think that changes from TLOS is a solution looking for a problem.

For me the changing of the rules means a can of worms is openned where one perceived problem is addressed but usually it creates a new one.

A lot of changes seem to be people harking back to 7th and trying to shoehorn 8th into 7.5 ed

Comp

No appetite for peer comp. Will look to attend those events that have a hard cap system. Prefer a minimal system of hard caps.

ETC is pretty much the most stringent set of caps I'd be happy to play under (by choice).

Regards

Pete

[dave grant]

I was about to post but Pete pretty much said it.


It would be nice, for Team NZ, if 1-2 events (or even just 'get-togethers') used full ETC comp/rules. That said I would not use them for any other event.

The ETC-comp is in place for a specific event with its own 'unique' challenges (the Poles and Italians mostly ;-) ). That said it is not a 'bad' indicator of what needs to be in place to remove the excesses of 'uncomped' 8th ed... basically:

Amount of Shooting
Limiting magic
Limiting unit sizes
Limiting certain 'undercosted' choices
Some specific 'combos' (Dreadlord with Pendant and crown of command I'm looking at you).

Actual limits should be flexible and probably  much bigger than ETC.

I would check out 'Winter Incursion' and 'Sheffield Slaughter' for some of my preferred tournament 'hard caps'.

[warpmaster]

Would you think unrestricted core archers and a cap on special/rare archers would address this?

For Woodies?

I don't know if it would address it conpleatly,but i'd like to see if it worked or not with a few events running with it.I think it would add alot more to the "meta"game

Fan of full rules and minimal comp.

+1

The Game runs fine without to many restriction and its really only the silly loopholes that need to be looked at.

[Token]

I prefer to play 8th edition, straight out of the box using the GW FAQ's.

I started my tournament scene playing in the UK GW run GT's no comp, special characters allowed bring your flith. therefore IMO anything is fair game. An obsession with comp IMO will only damage the game. NZ scene is completly varied depending on what island your on, having played in Dunedin, CHCH, Wellington and Auckland. What is considered ok is varied. Having a comp system that covers everyone is going to be hard work. Whatever happend to the simple comp system of don't be a T**T

When you start mixing GW FAQ'a and ETC FAQ's and rules as written you are gonna put off a lot of garage gamers which is a bad and will put off a lot of people. And at the end we want to encourage more players, and straight out of the box garage gamers should be considered as well as tournament whores like myself.

Regards to the ETC there were over 300 FAQ's seriously? the whole point of a frequently asked question is that is frequently asked.

If you do need a comp system, a little comp system with hard caps with a TO overide should be enough

[Lezle]

Here, here!

Wholeheartedly in agreement with yov, Token.

[Ugrat]

Mal pritty much nailed it from my point of view 

GW RAW + FAQ, and minimal hard caps to remove some of those dreadful combos
To much comp lends itself to favouring a few play styles and variations

Heres hoping the first 3 new books are the sign of things to come. VC in January will be the tell


Also Warpy, i was suggesting no archer cap on core for all armies, not just woodies.

[hebejebus]

i totally agree with the above sentiments ETC was my preferred choice for restrictions if hard restrictions are to be placed. but i am (and i think a few other tronhammer guys too) definitly a fan of as little as comp as possible.

[Monkey King]

I've been loathe to voice here for a couple of reasons. First, I've been out of the game pretty much for 5 years having only just gone to NiCon, though before that I wasn't all that much a tournament player having only played 2 before my hiatus. Secondly, I'm really not that great a player as it is at the moment, (that's right, I may go around saying things like "Playa!" with a gangsta pose, but I'm all show and a faker.....) and Thirdly, I find I ramble a lot, something I blame over 2 decades of D&D playing where I seem to go on a tangent, splashing my thoughts upon a page like some drunken male in the dark aiming for the bowl and realising in the morning that it was the clothes basket all along.....but after talking with Placator the other night I was given false courage by him among other diseases, and so my two cents shall be spilled upon this page, however, if you aren't interested in my opinion, (and frankly, why would you be, I have so far told you why you shouldn't listen to me?!) then by all means, turn your head to the left a little and stare at that small bit of wall, I shall advise you when I have finished rambling....


I like Rasputin's idea first and foremost. Different tournaments with different sets of rules and so forth. I thought I saw whispers of at the previous year with FluffyCon, OTT and your more typical in the form of say NiCon. Each had a different aim in a way, something which I thought was quite cool, but why not go further and have an all bash tournament? No TO really needed, no comp scores, just Battle points. Or a painting one where you have to have a fully painted army? So, I do like the idea of different tournaments.

The other idea I quite liked, yet again made by Rasputin, (I swear he hasn't paid me to agree with him all the time! (Rasputin: I'll forward my address details for those 'gifts')) was the whole council idea. A council of TO's which will view the lists for tournaments. It's a lot of work, I won't deny it, but I was thinking maybe the Masters could be this council, with only say 2-3 needed to approve any 1 list? This means we have what, 10 guys on the council and they are spread throughout the country, The TO of any given event gathers the lists well before the event, say 3-4 weeks, and forwards them to the Masters who you only 2-3 yeses for each list? Lot of work, lot of organising, but could maybe be worth it as all the lists will go past the same set of people?

I also agree that peer comp is a bad idea. I can't think of any situation where it could possibly work? It would be like asking all your friends if they think your latest girlfriend is good for you by letting them sleep with her?

I wish hardcaps didn't have to be used, but I can't think of any other way to fix some of the problems that seem to have been inherently planted within the game? If there were another way, I would say to use that, but if the need for hard caps is used in an event, then ETC all the way I say?

That's my two cents, sorry about the ramble, you may now stop looking at the wall....