ETC Comp - A Better Way?

Last evening I watched a series of YouTube videos prepared by two members of the Polish ETC team in response to the composition being developed by the Army Restrictions Committee for this year's ETC.

In essence, it was a study on how and why they are getting it wrong and in particular how they are creating a new game that deviates significantly from Warhammer. They indicate that, for continental Europe at least, this is highly counterproductive as it creates a barrier for entry for new tournament players. This is largely because the powerhouses of Central Europe adopt ETC restrictions for their own domestic tournament play. Whether doing this is a good thing is not discussed but I think bears consideration.

So what do they think is wrong with the ETC comp?

It is their contention that:

• The wrong people are doing the comp;
• That there is a lack of a clear statement of what they are trying to achieve;
• That the first step is to be restrictive which leads to a long, cumbersome and overly complicated document;
• That the lessons of the past have been ignored.

Putting aside the first point - as not knowing ETC politics I suspect they have a dog in that fight - let's look at their other points. 

They contend that the AR.com don't have a clear goal. Obviously the AR.com think differently but I do think their point has some merit. Reading the ETC comp I don't get a clear understanding of what is trying to be achieved. Is it balance between books? Is it to make matchup process largely irrelevant? Is it to balance the game? Is it to neutralise the paper-scissors-rock aspects prevalent in Warhammer? With 15 books I'd contend that it is hard to achieve all of these things at once. So therefore I agree with the Poles that a clear statement would be helpful. 

Secondly, they believe that the AR.com has included restrictions that have no clear goal and build on one another to little end. To demonstrate they cite the example of restricting Lizardmen Scar Vets to two. They point out that due to item choice the inclusion of a third Scar-Vet actually weakens the army as it stops points being spent on producing an offensive Skink level caster. However by then trying to ensure some "concept" of external balance this leads to restrictions in other books and pretty soon you have band-aids everywhere to little purpose. This results in the tome we now have. 

The final point about the lessons of the past is probably the most compelling. In 7th Edition we had the years of the Big Three. This was 2008-10 where Daemons, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts dominated tabletops around the world. The solution adopted then and now rejected was to reduce the points level of those armies. This has the effect of creating internal competition for points and leads to natural restrictions rather than arbitrarily imposed ones. Certainly I think that this approach bears investigating again as it means that you can reduce the overall number of band-aids being applied and greatly reduce the complexity and potential for failure of comp.

I remain firmly in the camp that less comp is good and that by playing scenarios, big magic and terrain you alleviate the need for heavy comp in most singles competition. However if you must have comp - and what would Europe be without some central bureaucratic behemoth trying to control the market - then the approach they are suggesting bears serious consideration.