One idea that I've been considering for NZTC is including "Community Chest" and "Forbidden Lore".
These concepts came up in a discussion re Team Comp for the ETC on The Warhammer Forum. The Europeans immediately through their hands up in the air and said they were ill-suited for serious Warhammer but I do think that they have legs for the NZTC. James Millington reminded me about them again today so I thought I would float the ideas for the NZTC and seek comment.
Community Chest
Each team of four can only have one of each Common Magic Item - except for the Dispel Scroll where you may have two.
Dwarves may only have one of each Rune and only one of Spelleater & Spell Breaker.
Forbidden Lore
Each team of four may only have one Level 3 or 4 with each Battle Magic Lore.
Each team of four may only have one Level 1 or 2 with each Battle Magic Lore
So this means only one Charmed Shield in your team, only one Dragonhelm etc. It also means across your team you can only have one Level 3/4 Light and one Level 1/2 Light Wizard.
What do people think?
I think this sounds good. Would emphasise the 'team' component of the tournament. And really, ETC-comp is ill-suited for serious warhammer. These suggestions are far less damning to the project.
ReplyDeleteMake it so.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of Forbidden Lore. It would be really nice to see something other than Death magic on every caster in the tournament. Relatively simple to
ReplyDeleteThe Community Chest however, having thought about it for a while now, just seems:
a) destined to create errors and be a nightmare for list checking.
b) solve a problem that doesn't really exist. What actually gets spammed regularly across a wide spread of armies that is actually a problem, Scrolls? Ward Saves? MR?
c) actually might encourage more gunline/magic heavy lists which are less character dependent. Combat characters, key to many aggressive combat lists which surely we want to encourage over corner-hammer, and where alot of general magic item spam occurs (Shields/Helms, Dawnstones etc) suffer massively. (God, it would really suck to have Lizards/Bretts on the same team!)
A)For the record I do not mind checking.
DeleteB) & C) concerns are possibly legit. Up to you guys.
Also stops teams having a Death Magic fetish or similar. Also the magic items will force teams to plan as a team and early (also will cause interteam bickering!)
ReplyDeleteGood plan.
I think the idea has merit.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to see the impact I think is to try it and then seek feedback. It does ensure team work (or not) in the approach to designing and submitting lists.
I don't understand the hitting of Dwarfs however. Why single them out for a harsher treatment? The rune of stone is a very common item and according to the fluff the first rune that any trainee makes. The rune rules do stop the worst combos. I recommend dropping the Dwarf part of the restrictions.
I dont think it addresses any problem that exists. All it does is remove options from armies/teams.
ReplyDeleteLight council is no longer a thing, and taking multiple low level casters as an option is removed from alot of armies.
The magic item thing is interesting but fail to see any benifit. Great now one character can carry a charmed shield in the entire team, yet my opponent can stil take as many cannons etc as they wish.
I dont like it at all tbh. Seems to be adding extra restrictions for no reason.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea, mostly because it means you really do need to work as a team rather than four individuals who add their points together.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely commented upon that in singles tournaments, a wizard sets up a magic shop selling 4++ ward saves, dispel scrolls and ruby rings outside the venue. Most armies have a L4 with whatever lore is the "best" at the moment - metal or death or light.
You can still have your unkillable disclord, and your nurgle DP with charmed shield. But your teammate won't have an unkillable scar-vet, and that vampire in the bus might just be worth taking on with only a 5++ ward. Who gets the fencer's blades? The seer on the bell or the slaughtermaster? When your autoinclude item isn't freely available, you need to make choices within your list and within your team.
Similarly, if you've only got a TK light council, you'll have to try a lot harder to get it matched against the opposition's daemons. Or your goblin player doesn't have a choice between a slann with death, a herald with death, a hierophant with death or a vampire with death to kill their low leadership characters. Or if you're up against the empire halberd horde with mindrazor, that's one less thing your buddy over there has to worry about facing the high elves.
It only works in a team environment and could change up the whole shebang? It might be horrible and everyone might end up hating it? It could add a very interesting layer that the listbuilders will totally love trying to work out the meta? I like the idea but it may not be easily implementable, especially for a full on competetive event?
J
Never seen an unkillable scar-vet, in my experience they die and die often regardless on what kit they're packing
DeleteSo...basically for teams to be successful they need to bring older armybooks that dont have the same magic item restrictions and some of the best defensive combos in the game (heck - even the woodies can kit up some pretty defensive characters using armybook only items)...This feels like another "man I miss 7th ed when my army was the only one with X magic item benefit"
ReplyDeleteSeems like a heavy handed way to counter the defensive denial-hammer approach...just instead pushes people towards gunline armies.
Off the top of my head I would suggest a more "fun" and easier to TO comp would be stuff like "minimum 6 monsters per team of which at least 1 has to be a mount for a character" and "only 1 army is allowed ranged attacks outside of the magic phase that do d6 wounds" etc
Easy to write lists for...encourages people to bring monsters and makes teams think hard about how they are going to counter monsters/minimise their exposure to the cannon army etc.
I like Joel's idea too :) And it can be extended as far as you like, and could include stuff like: "only 1 Level 4 per team" or "only 20 monstrous models per team (infantry/cavalry/beasts)". So you can still have your toys, but only if someone else on your team makes a sacrifice.
DeleteI see a team's event as a chance to really make a statement and a highlight. I think it can be so much more than 4 independent singles matches added together each round. Sure there is some interaction with the list choosing as is - I just would like to see a whole load more.
J
See I don't like to introduce comp for comp sake. I thought it might work on the level of making teams work together a bit more.
ReplyDeleteOn the basis that it doesn't meet universal approval I'll shelf the idea for the NZTC and might use it at another team event next year.
No harm done and it has certainly flushed out those selfish buggers who don't play well with others. Who would have thought Sam wouldn't want to give up his Charmed Crutch or Joel and Tim could see their Light Council's evaporating. And we haven't even seen comment from Kapiti. Imagine those team discussions :-)
I do like the idea. However, I feel there is much teamwork already done in a well organised NZTC team, such as: knowing your role in the team, gauging match ups, knowing when to push for points at critical times in a 'round' and knowing when to conserve points also.
DeleteJust play test it. See how it goes...
Also how is this practically worked out with Demon players...is the onus on the person playing against the demon player to check that they have not defaulted to a magic item that is already present in the team? I foresee grey lines appearing around "innocent mistake" and "trying it on". This is not something I want to have to deal with game 4 on Saturday!
DeleteAlso I stand by my point...make it fun not a logistical nightmare (especially for the teams with players around the world). Stuff like minimum monster requirement, max number of cannon-like weapons per team etc. These sorts of restrictions encourage board edge hugging defensive "dont want to risk my character with no ward" play.
If you're set on the magic lores one-restrict the duplication for lord level characters...restricting access to lvl1 metal mages and fire mages will give some armies a massive (unnecessary) advantage - speaking as a 1+ armoursave specialist...and someone who plays vs regen a lot!
The "death snipe" team thing only exists in ETC comp land where they ignore GW Rulings on Inspiring Presence with Spirit Leech. Play by the BRB/GW FAQs and Spirit Leech is a weak spell vs stuff in the General's leadership bubble = no real issue
Joel v
Good old 5 point magic item crutches...... Should just not take it, then Charlie can cuntblaster me off first turn instead of second. Magic items are there to be used. They are common.
ReplyDelete"Doesn't Play Well With Others" = Selfish Git
DeleteMy best sports trophies beg to differ :)
DeleteYeah but how many you got from GTs?
DeleteHey Peter,
DeleteI feel its a great idea and it will make teams need to try hard to get the match ups that the army wants.
I knew reading through what you have written there are people out there that will rage as they are other not team players or don't know how to play anything else but the crutch that they know.
Lets face it though at the end of the day it is your tourney and you can place all of the restrictions that you want.
FYI you are never going to get everyone to side one way or another.
Hey Anonymous, what is your name?
Deletethe idea has merit but have you considered a similar rule set however for every item etc after the first you simply double the points value? ie Charmed Shield - 5, 10, 20, 40?
ReplyDeleteand for characters/casters maybe second, 3rd etc you add 50% to the points - 100%, 150%, 200% etc?
That way ppl can still take the toys they want but at a price.
Overall I'm not a big fan of either concept but I'd still happily play in the event.
Well no one was going to take beastmen anyways so sounds good.
ReplyDeleteThe Wolfpack strongly supports the proposal.
I generally like the idea but does make certain things that get whinged about (k'dais, skullcannons and other cannons) harder to deal with and could therefore encourage the warhammer moaners. Speaking as a Pom(my barstard) there is nothing worse than whinging and anything that can be done to decrease that would be good.
ReplyDeleteAlso is High Magic on Lizards and High Magic on High Elves considered the same lore given the different lore attributes...what about loremasters????
ReplyDeleteThis will result in an ETC FAQ that I would love to not have to read/deal with.
Joel v
Guys,
ReplyDeleteIt is dead for the NZTC next year. As I said unless it was universally embraced it wasn't really a goer.
Just to be clear this isn't a chance to open up a debate on comp for NZTC which TBF will just degenerate into a whinge about how broken other people's armies are. It was a one off suggestion to provide a point of difference and team dynamic into a Team event.
Lobby groups from "The 5 Point Magic Item League" and "The Electric Light Council" as well as the "NZ Undertakers Collective" have already started collecting signatures on petitions to put a stop to plans. Indeed there are stories of Necromancers raising dead purely for their signatures to ensure the continued popularity of the Death Lore.
And that's all cool. The 2014 NZTC will be played under PLC with no Community Chests or Forbidden Lore. However I may be keen to run another event late next year which tests the concepts.
Rest assured your net lists are safe :-)
Pete
I totally missed this. I think it's a great idea.
ReplyDelete