Army size for ETC

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

We have just released T9A: Quick Starter Edition. Check it out now in the news or on the Rules page!

  • 4.5k is the size the designers recommend you play at, thus in a competitive environment, such as the ETC, using the size where balance is supposed to work the best would make sense.

    Doubling the points costs has had the effect of eliminating any fractional pointed options and allows certain units to be priced at values that would have been fractional under the old system. Example:



    I too find it difficult to fit everything I would like into a 4.5k list, which surely means that you only bring what you absolutely think is the best or alternatively you have to accept that your army might be lacking something. Also remember that I am arguing for the competitive environment right now and personally seeing some MSU run around is not a problem for me.
    Best in race WoDG - Ammerhammer
  • Eternal Flitter wrote:



    I too find it difficult to fit everything I would like into a 4.5k list, which surely means that you only bring what you absolutely think is the best or alternatively you have to accept that your army might be lacking something. Also remember that I am arguing for the competitive environment right now and personally seeing some MSU run around is not a problem for me.
    exactly the point with 4.5K. People have to think and make decisions about the army instead of just taking everything.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    ETC 2016 - Referee

    Creator of Super biased EoS player.
  • Eternal Flitter wrote:

    4.5k is the size the designers recommend you play at, thus in a competitive environment, such as the ETC, using the size where balance is supposed to work the best would make sense.

    Doubling the points costs has had the effect of eliminating any fractional pointed options and allows certain units to be priced at values that would have been fractional under the old system. Example:



    I too find it difficult to fit everything I would like into a 4.5k list, which surely means that you only bring what you absolutely think is the best or alternatively you have to accept that your army might be lacking something. Also remember that I am arguing for the competitive environment right now and personally seeing some MSU run around is not a problem for me.
    Sorry Options are removed without any reasons on most units means this can´t be the point of doubling points but OT.
    Yes i´also speaking about Tournaments on friend games i like also more then 5k but never less then 4,5K. To fit 4,5 K i follow the restrictions and most time i hit them on the less powerfull units. On 5K there are so many more variances.

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Eternal Flitter wrote:

    I too find it difficult to fit everything I would like into a 4.5k list, which surely means that you only bring what you absolutely think is the best or alternatively you have to accept that your army might be lacking something. Also remember that I am arguing for the competitive environment right now and personally seeing some MSU run around is not a problem for me.
    exactly the point with 4.5K. People have to think and make decisions about the army instead of just taking everything.
    On 5K i have to made the same decissions cause the stratagy are the same , but i can do more variances on my lists. Also i liked all the time 2,5K or 3K more then 2,250 or 2K games. More Units , more variances all this are + for 5K. Also you argument are against your normal answer to remove complexty.

    Assistant Head of Playtesting

    Bringer of Chaos , Duke of Bretonia , Slann of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Disease , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • I do not understand the buzz about the ETC point value. Who cares about it, if it gets played with 5k or 4,5k, it makes for the tournaments or games around here absolutely no difference.

    The only difference it makes is, when I need to test with the pals for the ETC and even for that thing, the tournament is still more than 6 months away.

    Greetings,
    Kathal

    Advisory Board

    Legal-Team

    Lexicon-Team


    Do: The 9th Age Behind the Scenes Blog with TINS
    Done: ABC/AS WDG

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    ETC 2016 - ID
  • Kathal wrote:

    I do not understand the buzz about the ETC point value. Who cares about it, if it gets played with 5k or 4,5k, it makes for the tournaments or games around here absolutely no difference.

    The only difference it makes is, when I need to test with the pals for the ETC and even for that thing, the tournament is still more than 6 months away.

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    Changes the dynamics quite big actually.
    In terms of what armies will be brought and what team strategy are you gonna use. Especially now that teams are forming (or have formed) people will start playing testing very list and that extra 500 points can make a big difference.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • I've come to fully embrace 4500 points in my games. No, I can't fit all the models I want. Neither can the opponent, and that's the point as I see it.

    As was mentioned by others, a 4500 list feels more vulnerable to specific threats. Planning to mitigate this is challenging and enjoyable, instead of just checking that all my bases are covered once more.

    Because no list ever really feels complete, I'm encouraged to try very different ones on a regular basis. My "Face all comers" selections had grown stale; now I am rotating in forgotten models for the first time in a long time, and facing more variety from my regular antagonists as well.

    So it is that I prefer 4500, and hope to see more venues and events adopt it.
    9th Age: Because casual gamers hate Age of Sigmar too.
  • Geodon wrote:

    I've come to fully embrace 4500 points in my games. No, I can't fit all the models I want. Neither can the opponent, and that's the point as I see it.

    As was mentioned by others, a 4500 list feels more vulnerable to specific threats. Planning to mitigate this is challenging and enjoyable, instead of just checking that all my bases are covered once more.

    Because no list ever really feels complete, I'm encouraged to try very different ones on a regular basis. My "Face all comers" selections had grown stale; now I am rotating in forgotten models for the first time in a long time, and facing more variety from my regular antagonists as well.

    So it is that I prefer 4500, and hope to see more venues and events adopt it.
    I'm the same, the extra restriction is subtle but noticeable. All my 4500 lists feel vulnerable somewhere, which is how it should be in all honesty. It's very refreshing to see MSU lists on the table again after how many years? (And I'm someone who loves their horde units!)
  • But we're not talking about old 5k, or any sort of creep.

    5k new points is just under the number of models we had in 2016.
    4.5k new points is significantly below that.

    I just said that I would love balanced system on the level of last year's ETC.

    For the record, 2016 T9A was the best balanced and the most fun ETC Fantasy system since 2010, when I actively started following it.
    ex-ABC-DH
    ex-AS-DH
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    More models and bigger battles = Harder to balance since you can very easily fill up almost all weaknesses of your army.
    We're talking about 500 points of models, not enough to 'easily fill up almost all weaknesses'.

    Regardless, Wizards are way too expensive for 4500 at present. If the goal is to have people actually play with magic, something needs doing.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Regardless, Wizards are way too expensive for 4500 at present. If the goal is to have people actually play with magic, something needs doing.
    I always have to grin, when I think about it, how radical magic changed over the 13 years I'm playing TTG.

    It is a nice change for me, to say it this way.

    Greetings,
    Kathal

    Advisory Board

    Legal-Team

    Lexicon-Team


    Do: The 9th Age Behind the Scenes Blog with TINS
    Done: ABC/AS WDG

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    ETC 2016 - ID
  • Wizards were ALWAYS expensive in the past. At least when they were more than a scroll caddy.
    Basic wizard costs are not much more than in the past, while they got a third wound. It doesn´t pay off to overinvest in magic, but if you hit the right amount of magic in your army magic will propably pay off it´s points and have decent impact on the game.

    It is the fact that you will not see some "I cast this spell, and if it goes off, I will win big, instead of loosing" situations any more that makes a lot of people feel, that magic is too expensive now.

    Compare the mage to 2 warmachines...chances are that that the two warmachines will do nothing, depending on the targets, chances are the two warmachines will pay off and get about the same amount of points or more than invested if there are the corresponding targets. While warmachines will have more impact when taken in larger numbers, but are limited via armybooks in their amount, every player has to choose for himself the amount of invested points in magic.
    Now, with the more costly +2dispell banner making it necessary to invest outside core, and the scroll beeing not compatible with bound spells any more, I think we will see less lists with no magic at all.

    500 points are a lot in addition to most armies. For example to include 2-3 warmachines in a "in your face" dwarven seeker army. Enough to additional buy a steam tank in en empire army (or 2 canons).
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Regardless, Wizards are way too expensive for 4500 at present. If the goal is to have people actually play with magic, something needs doing.

    Talking about games actually played and not Theoryhammer: At least the top English players would disagree with this statement - both the Thundercocks ( @Gelmarus ) as well as the SlanRatRadio guys ( @Raffazza) have stated in regards to their UK Masters experience (which was played with the 1.3 rule set) that no-magic is rarely a good option in a competitive environment. In fact there was only 1 player with a no-magic list (playing an ancient dragon afaik) at the UK Masters which is an invitational event that can only be attended if you are among the best performing players of the past season.


    There are certainly lists that can work without magic support but not using it is still a huge drawback. Besides a specific Warriors build I haven't seen a no-magic army that impressed me (including the ancient dragon list).
    Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age Founding Member

    ETC 2012 2nd Place
    ETC 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2016 Participant

    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests
  • Sir_Joker wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Regardless, Wizards are way too expensive for 4500 at present. If the goal is to have people actually play with magic, something needs doing.
    Talking about games actually played and not Theoryhammer: At least the top English players would disagree with this statement - both the Thundercocks ( @Gelmarus ) as well as the SlanRatRadio guys ( @Raffazza) have stated in regards to their UK Masters experience (which was played with the 1.3 rule set) that no-magic is rarely a good option in a competitive environment. In fact there was only 1 player with a no-magic list (playing an ancient dragon afaik) at the UK Masters which is an invitational event that can only be attended if you are among the best performing players of the past season.


    There are certainly lists that can work without magic support but not using it is still a huge drawback. Besides a specific Warriors build I haven't seen a no-magic army that impressed me (including the ancient dragon list).
    Agree. Almost all players here use magic as well. Last tournament however was the first time ever I tried playing without magic, and well.. My first single tournaments win in 10 years! A MEMOIR OF AN OGRE :P

    I still think having magic is worth it, but at the same time it's now worth it to skip it as well.

    I would only want some small changes to the miscast, I feel Witchfire does too much to low T, expensive models. Some paths are of course better than others, but that has always been the case. Some more tweaking next update and I think magic is about where it should be.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    ETC 2016 - Referee

    Creator of Super biased EoS player.
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    I feel Witchfire does too much to low T, expensive models.

    I hear you - I really tried to fix this issue because non-tar pit low T bunkers ( --> elfs) explode left and right if you miscast currently but it didn't find a majority.

    But magic is subject to change with 2.0 therefore I hope we will manage to balance it better :)
    Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age Founding Member

    ETC 2012 2nd Place
    ETC 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2016 Participant

    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests