Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Theduke07 wrote:Okay this is getting absurd with a constant backpedel to an unclear definition on what YOU consider team game or whatever your point is at this point in addition to a constant dismissal without rebuttal of my points.

It's more like what you consider a team game (sum of individuals) versus the opinions of ETC attendants, each year the same rules are voted. With your way, why play one country vs another? Play an individual game and sum all the 8 members results...
The best of ETC is the rules itself. It's fun to make the lists, choose the codex function, make the pairings, and so on. We have a lot of individual tournaments, why in the hell we would make a TEAM tournament the same as an individual one?, just play 6 games and sum it up.
Very few people go to the single tournament (when you can take the codex you want) and there is a high demand to enter into the team tournament.

Theduke07 wrote:Umm yes. It's a tournament, competitive by definition and
"The prestige of the European Team Championship has reached unprecedented levels and it is largely regarded as the World Cup of Warhammer."
http://www.rankingshq.com/etc/

You are using a sentence of a news page to make your point, not even the actual ETC page. As an attendant I can tell that the ETC it's a tournament and it's both competitive and fun. But as you say, who wins the World Cup? The best individual (lest's say Messi) or the best team (Let's say Spain ). And that tournament also has stupid rules like not allowing to use more than one goalkeeper

RiTides wrote:

Phazael wrote:Here is to hoping that they do the same with Fantasy.

Seriously. What's with the broad strokes completely banning all special characters? It's silly... if you need to ban some, ban the ones that are more universally agreed to be overpowered, but at the very least, don't ban all of them...

I can explain that. At the start there wasn't any ban. After seeing that there was some broken SC that nearly everyone was using, the teams decided to ban a list of them. But that had a huge problem, why banning Eldrad, Vulkan, Kairos and not Abaddon, lysander, deceiver? Where is the line? Why f*** some lists like Kairos' daemons and not other?. What keep a team from banning all the SC that they aren't going to use?. The following year, the teams decided to ban all SC and simplificy the rules, the voting and FAQ. This year there has been a new vote and now all the SC has been accepted. This is a tournament made by players for players, the majority set the rules.

<broadcast mode active: GENERAL THREAD WARNING - if you cannot discuss this event without resorting to hyperbole , negative comments about the individuals responsible for running the event, or statements that "doing <x> means this isn't 40k," then you should not be participating in the conversation, and I will remove you from it>

To address a few logical fallacies here from you Duke......

But flat out banning SC was stupid. No debate about it.

Why?

A tournament organiser may enforce any rules they so desire. From deciding the number of points, to disallowing Forgeworld units, to coming up with custom missions. Why is disallowing special characters any different or more stupid? All these things are decided by the TO.

But in time this may be a real tournament.

There are groups of people, playing a game with measurable and quantifiable victories, for a prize and placings in a competitive format. It's a tournament.

Plenty of events that claim to be 'tournaments' but are nothing of the sort when it comes to competitive formats with heavy comp and other ridiculous junk like the Grand Waaah GT or whatever had. You change 40k too much and you can't claim to be the world championship.

This argument is self defeating. No tournament will ever be identical.

Unless you enforced the exact same number of missions(and number of them played), the exact same points cost, the exact same number of players, and so on, there will always be variability between tournaments. There is no 'universal standard' to measure against.

The format does not encourage competitive lists. it pushes gimmicks and attempts at counter matchups

Incorrect. It pushes competitiveness within the boundaries defined.

If I decide to launch a football match with one less player than normal, the match does does not suddenly become 'uncompetitive'. The teams are still competing, therefore it is, by definition, competitive. Variation on criteria does not eliminate competitiveness.

The best team would be made of the best players in theory

Almost. The winners would be the best team within this format in theory.

How is my definition of a team game more 'narrow' when it has less restrictions than your definition.

No. It has restrictions, even if that restriction is, 'your score may NOT be counted as part of a team!


See Duke, I believe where you're headbutting with these other chaps is on a rather simple ground. You believe that the format decided upon for the ETC differ sufficiently from what you would consider a game of 'standard Warhammer 40K' to be, that winning a game at the ETC does not constitute winning a game of 'standard 40K'. As such, claiming the title of World 40K champion would seem to be deceptive at best.

And I can understand your thinking on that one. Seriously, I can. However, I believe it to be fundamentally incorrect on the following premise.

As I said somewhere near the point of my responses to some few of your comments, every TO will set certain rules, from the points level to the mission set. This variability means that when trying to say that the ETC doesn't count as a 'standard warhammer 40K', you're then hard pressed to define exactly what IS. You actually end up running into a sort of 'No True Scotsman' argument.

I mean, if I win a World Championship of 40K, played with the standard 3 missions, set at 1500 points each, I cannot claim to be the world champion. Simply the world champion at 1500 points under those 3 standard missions. But since I was only playing at one points value, does that mean I have to win a tournament at EVERY points value played to consider myself the 'world champion'? Using your logic, it means I do. Otherwise, I couldn't POSSIBLY consider myself the world champ, as I haven't played 'standard warhammer 40K'(presuming you think the standard is 1750 points. If you think its 1500, swap the analogy with the other figure).

Comparably, if my team wins the ETC of 40K, playing the ETC 40K missions, I can only claim to be the European Champion Team, of ETC 40K. Not of 'Standard Warhammer 40K'.(which is your view, however, application of your logic leads to the above and below examples).


To use the football analogy again, if I hold a world football tournament that has one player less than usual, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly not playing football. If I have teams showing up from around the world and competing under those rules, I'm allowed to declare a 'football champion team'. Because the game is so essentially similar to the more standard format, it still qualifies as football. I won't call the team the 'football champion team in a slightly modified format which means this is not actually football'. Because that, my friend, is daft.

Why do people keep falling back on team analogies where the entire team plays at once where the ETC uses a series of single competitor games. It's a logically fallacious analogy
Edit: Man why do I keep suckering myself into replying. This is seriously the tournament where more than half the council though that for a few years thought that Vulkan or who ever were so 'broken' they banned them than could say with a straight face it was a competitive event.

Theduke07 wrote:Why do people keep falling back on team analogies where the entire team plays at once where the ETC uses a series of single competitor games. It's a logically fallacious analogy

Each game may be played individually, but they are measured collectively, making it a team format.

If I enter a pool tournament as part of a team, with twenty tables in a hall, each game played between two people individually, and mine and my teams scores are collated and compared to the other teams, its a team format.

If you wish to transfer the football analogy, simply substitute with the above team pool tournament, only this time, it's pool with two black balls in the triangle at the start. The rules are all the same otherwise. Yet I may still crown the winning team at the end the 'European pool team champions'.

The analogy remains just as apt, and not logically fallacious in the slightest.

Well if you change the analogy, it's the not the same analogy. The pool one is valid the earlier sports ones were not. The sports ones and the pool one's are completely different in the contributed efforts of the team. One game where the team plays at once and a team series are two whole-fully different things.

So I take it Theduke07 won't be going to the ETC this year? Whew, that's one less spot we have to worry about!

Ozymandias wrote:So I take it Theduke07 won't be going to the ETC this year? Whew, that's one less spot we have to worry about!

*laugh track*

ETC is awesome by all accounts. A pretty amazing competitive event, from the sounds of it. It is not the same format as most tournaments, but it's pure silly hyperbole for anyone to say it's not 40k, or that it's not competitive. I feel sad and a bit confused that anyone could think that.

Theduke07 wrote:Well if you change the analogy, it's the not the same analogy. The pool one is valid the earlier sports ones were not. The sports ones and the pool one's are completely different in the contributed efforts of the team. One game where the team plays at once and a team series are two whole-fully different things.

To be honest, if you don't see the football analogy as valid, then you really missed the point of the analogy. The point of it, was that even if you change the rules slightly (to have team scores collated, or to ban certain characters), it makes you no less valid to be crowned the best 40K Team, than winning 6 missions based on 3 rulebook scenarios at 1500 points makes you qualified to be crowned 'Best Player of 40K'.

In both cases, you are competing within an area defined by the TO, adhering to criteria defined by the TO, based around the same ruleset. Just with slightly different applications. There is no 'fundamentally correct' game of 40K one could ever play in a competitive environment that would not run into exactly the same logical problems as you have portrayed for the ETC.


Therefore we are forced to accept that this is a 'No True Scotsman Argument', and proceed with things practically. Whilst the title may not be 100% objectively correct, no 40K tournament ever could be. So the ETC has as good a claim as any.


You may feel this is unfair, as your gut tells you it should be different. Somehow. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But on a logical basis, it seems to be groundless (unless of course, you can prove my logic is flawed...?)

There are many tournaments out there and many ways to score who won.

The Ryder Cup (Golf) has players playing against each other one-on-one, and their results are pooled together to figure out which team won. This is similar to the ETC.

If you think the rules changes means that they are not playing 40k, here is another analogy for you...whenever teams from different counties come together to play a sporting event they play by different rules that what they are normally use to. For an example, when the US Basketball team plays in the Olympics, they play by international basketball rules that are different than the rules of the NBA. Because they are playing with a different rules set does that meant that they are no longer playing basketball?

Banning massive portions of the game isn't slightly changing the format.
There is no logical flaw because your argument scope is board and all inclusive . But you can logicaly claim a lot of things but it doesn't add to the 'debate' . You simply state that all variations of 40k tournaments are fine because you can't prove one format is better at determine skill than the other ; then there is simply nothing to talk about with a claim like that.

Theduke07, do you even know who goes and competes at these events? The US team spent several thousands of dollars, each, in order to go to Switzerland and compete this past summer. Do you think that they do that for their health or they enjoy the great Swiss weather?

Stop being obtuse and realize that other opinions than your own are valid and you don't own the keys to "competitive" (hahaha, i'm sorry...) 40k!

Theduke07 wrote:Banning massive portions of the game isn't slightly changing the format.

Special Characters are a massive portion of the game? Really?

40k it is unplayable without them! How do they do it? /sarcasm

You've really opened my heart. i take back everything I said because I never noticed that there were other opinions but my own.

Theduke07 wrote:Banning massive portions of the game isn't slightly changing the format.

Is it really banning 'massive portions of the game'?

I mean, if you looked at the word count of the rulebook, the number of overall units in each codex, and so on, I doubt you'd find Special characters comprise of more than a tiny percentage of the game itself. I mean, it's not even like they're banning Heavy Support slots or something, it's literally just a few entries in the HQ.

I mean, do you remember Combat Patrol from 4th Edition? You weren't allowed to use any character with more than 2 wounds, vehicles with more than combined armour 33, etc. That was an official ruleset published by the author, and has been used in competitive play, if only as a warmup round in Escalation format.

I mean, again, using the logic you've given here, combat patrol back then was not actually 40K. Which is an absurd claim, considering it was brought in as 40K by the rules writers.

You simply state that all variations of 40k tournaments are fine because you can't prove one format is better at determine skill than the other ; then there is simply nothing to talk about with a claim like that.

Almost, but you're not quite getting me.

I'm stating that all variations of 40K tournaments are fine, because every 40K game is a variation. Therefore you shouldn't have a problem with the ETC that you don't also have with every single other 40K tournament of every kind.

I'm not implying skill format or anything along those lines. I'm simply trying to show you that slagging off the ETC as somehow 'not being 40K', or being 'uncompetitive' is fundamentally logically flawed.

I'm not saying you have to like the ETC, or that you can't consider other variations/formats better at judging skill.

Blackmoor wrote:

Theduke07 wrote:Banning massive portions of the game isn't slightly changing the format.

Special Characters are a massive portion of the game? Really?

40k it is unplayable without them! How do they do it? /sarcasm

Yeah not being to play certain list for no reason makes great sense. Let's just not put any terrain on the board and ban the use of any weapon with S>4 if for lulz. while make random changes
I'll say one great thing about the ETC is it gave us checkered Genestealers so now non one can complain about the US being Ard Boyz power gamers were they proved RAW > all.

Theduke07 wrote:
Yeah not being to play certain list for no reason makes great sense..

Should we add all the Forgeworld rules and entries to competitive play then?

Sure why not. No worse than DCA with a pimping Inq and any good army should be able to handle a Super Heavy.

Theduke07 wrote:Sure why not. No worse than DCA with a pimping Inq and any good army should be able to handle a Super Heavy.

Fair enough.

Like I said, if you think the ETC isn't the best format a competitive team event could be, that's fair play. I ain't trying to convince you of that.

The great irony here is that the OP is about how the ETC will now allow special characters.

At the end of the day it is within the right of someone running a tournament to make whatever arbitrary rule they wish, because the person who wins the tournament is the person who does best within the specified rule set being used (whether this be missions, deployments, comp scoring, banning SCs, allowing FW army lists, FW units, using the INAT FAQ, using a house ruled FAQ, etc.) Pretty much every tournament has its own spin on exactly how 40k is to be played and how things work.
Although I do understand that banning SCs in the modern codex climate is incredibly restricting to some people (all the Deathwing, Ravenwing, Loganwing, Draigowing, Hellion, All Wolf, Death Company armies out there), but again...the tournament is all about winning within its rules (however arbitrary and constricting they may be)

And bearing in mind also that the rules for the ETC were set by the votes of the participating team captains, so there's even less grounds for complaint. As in the Olympics, the rules may be a bit different from what any given country uses at home, but when you agree together on a set of rules for the event, it's always going to be a compromise.

And great players adapt and do well even if and when the playing field and the rules are different than they're used to. The difference between the excellent players who choose to fly to Switzerland or Poland or Germany to play 40k, and the naysayers on the sidelines, is that the former are the serious competitors. Talk is cheap.

If you do not like the rules of the ETC, then don't play in it.

Thanks for the tip. I never considered that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:RITides - for fantasy there IS no current, universal list of broken fantasy characters. There is a LOT of debate on this - see SCGT in UK, which is considering the use of SCs (as am I) but trying to work out which ones to ban - is Thorek (with the GW GT amendment of one reroll only) as broken anymore? Teclis is definitely broken, but isnt that also due to BoWD / BoS / PG shenanigans?

Sorry for the really late reply here, but you're right, I agree that there's no universal list (probably for anything in warhammer, but still).

However, there are some that are stick their necks out a bit, so to speak:

Kairos Fateweaver
Teclis
Thorek
Masque?

Add or subtract a few, but to answer your question, yes I'd say Thorek could be excluded- he's quite powerful and changes the way dwarfs can be played, which seems to be something ETC tries to avoid.

Theduke07 wrote:You've really opened my heart. i take back everything I said because I never noticed that there were other opinions but my own.

*bangs head on keyboard* aeefcgyresddgy

Theduke07 wrote:Thanks for the tip. I never considered that.

Clearly.

RITides - Yeah, Masque is certainly a PITA...but Thorek with one reroll as bad as Kairos? And so on. Its just nowhere near as obvious a list as it used to be.

So theduke has given their place up in the US team? Bet people were sweating there for a minute...

Theduke07 wrote:Why do people keep falling back on team analogies where the entire team plays at once where the ETC uses a series of single competitor games. It's a logically fallacious analogy
Edit: Man why do I keep suckering myself into replying. This is seriously the tournament where more than half the council though that for a few years thought that Vulkan or who ever were so 'broken' they banned them than could say with a straight face it was a competitive event.

The same reason that a bowling league works on a team basis. Each of the 3-4 bowlers rolls their own, individual game, but the sum total of all of their performance and handicaps determine which team won.

This is the exact same thing as what the ETC is doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, there are many sports and competitive games that have a wide variety of formats. Volleyball has official rules for 2, 3, 4 and 6 person teams. The rules are different for each. For example, in 6 person indoor volleyball, there is a 10-foot backrow attack line that doesn't exist in 2, 3, or 4 person outdoor volleyball. Additionally, the stringency with which ball handling with the hands is called is widely different between indoor and outdoor volleyball. Is one form of the sport inherently the "right way" and all the others wrong?

If you want a game example, look at the wide variation of competitive pool formats. Is only eight-ball the serious, competitive format? Or is it snooker? The differences between those two versions include different tables and balls, though the concept is fundamentally the same.

Lastly, and this is absolutely not intended as an "attack" on any idividual, it always amuses me how much vitriol can be directed at different tournament formats by people who's likelihood of ever attending that tournament (even if the format were changed) is some figure approaching zero.

But people are DOING IT WRONG and I NEED TO TELL THEM HOW WRONG THEY ARE. Otherwise how will they know what a clever boy I am?

Just wanted throw in that Team America is psyched about moving to 1850 and removing restrictions on special characters. I think both moves will be great for the ETC.