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.

The European Team Championship will now allow special characters and the point level has been increased to 1850.

Has it been decided if they will include all special characters or if there will be a short list?

Illumini wrote:Has it been decided if they will include all special characters or if there will be a short list?

I heard all special characters will be allowed. Evidently the missions are going to change as well.

Yeah the ETC has decided to play 40k now. Still don't like this awful counter-pick fishing pokemon style format but beats nothing.

olympia wrote:

Illumini wrote:Has it been decided if they will include all special characters or if there will be a short list?

I heard all special characters will be allowed. Evidently the missions are going to change as well.

Guessing that this is highly unlikely, but please say that they are thinking about dropping VP's... 4th ed is long dead and gone, about time to drop the silly VP thing

Not to get in the endless KP/VP debate. VP are suggested for competitive play as an alternative to KP. But flat out banning SC was stupid. No debate about it. Just old hold overs that had no place in a world cup that is suppose to be respected as a world championship.

The whole idea of restricting anything in a team environment where all teams have access to the same exact things is kind of silly anyhow. Who cares if Chaptermaster Borkenshnorken autowins games when both teams can take him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is to hoping that they do the same with Fantasy.

Well there is still that silly you can't take the same army on your team. But in time this may be a real tournament.

Theduke07 wrote:Not to get in the endless KP/VP debate. VP are suggested for competitive play as an alternative to KP. But flat out banning SC was stupid. No debate about it.

Apart from the fact that every part of the rules is debated, discussed and voted for by all the participating teams....

Phazael wrote:The whole idea of restricting anything in a team environment where all teams have access to the same exact things is kind of silly anyhow. Who cares if Chaptermaster Borkenshnorken autowins games when both teams can take him?

But by an equal token what difference does it make if both teams are restricted by its exclusion?

Theduke07 wrote:Well there is still that silly you can't take the same army on your team. But in time this may be a real tournament.

And why would it be silly to not allow a team to bring, for example, 8 Grey Knight cut & paste spam armies?

As for the 'real tournament' comment. What makes it any less real to any other tournament apart form the fact that certain aspects may not agree with your own particular opinion, but clearly agree with significantly more peoples - otherwise why would its attendance increase year in year out?

I don't see how it would be silly if everyone could play the same army if they wanted to. It would actually help the game by allowing a team to develop tech or the best lists and try and prove they actually are.

As is, even if you do build the best list, it gets lost in the team's results.

Skcuzzlebumm wrote:

Theduke07 wrote:Well there is still that silly you can't take the same army on your team. But in time this may be a real tournament.

And why would it be silly to not allow a team to bring, for example, 8 Grey Knight cut & paste spam armies?

As for the 'real tournament' comment. What makes it any less real to any other tournament apart form the fact that certain aspects may not agree with your own particular opinion, but clearly agree with significantly more peoples - otherwise why would its attendance increase year in year out?

Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with the quality of a tournaments. 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. Also it isn't about an opinion of variety; the issue is the fact that this a tournament to 'find the best in the world' but if the two top players happened to be SW players they either have to play another army or find another person to play in their team. The format does not encourage competitive lists. it pushes gimmicks and attempts at counter matchups. Any of the countless interviews with the ETC teams has shown this. If they can't play the best list they want you can't get a clear result of who's the best or whatever, it's just some neat get together of tournament winners from the world playing in some pokemon deathmatch.

Theduke07 wrote:
Well there is still that silly you can't take the same army on your team. But in time this may be a real tournament.

And why would it be silly to not allow a team to bring, for example, 8 Grey Knight cut & paste spam armies?

Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with the quality of a tournaments. 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. Also it isn't about an opinion of variety; the issue is the fact that this a tournament to 'find the best in the world' but if the two top players happened to be SW players they either have to play another army or find another person to play in their team. The format does not encourage competitive lists. it pushes gimmicks and attempts at counter matchups. Any of the countless interviews with the ETC teams has shown this. If they can't play the best list they want you can't get a clear result of who's the best or whatever, it's just some neat get together of tournament winners from the world playing in some pokemon deathmatch.

It seems that your opinion is much better that the attendants' opinions. The rules for the tournament are voted each year by the same players who'll attend to it. It's getting bigger and wider each year, with more and more countries coming. I don't think that silly rules would attract so many people.

Do you really have any idea what the ETC is? It's the European Team Championship? How an European Team tournament can claim to be the best World Championship for finding the best individual player?. Do you know that there isn't even an award for the best general? Because in the own tournament there are only results and data about the teams. Several weeks after the tournament, looking for the result forms and doing the math, we are able to know which individual got more points.

It's a team tournament, not and individual one. That's why it has armies’ restrictions and pairing rules. It's more strategic and funnier this way. You have to try to do the best for your team not for you. There is also a individual tournament at the same place, but regretably they aren't even a quater of the people who attend the ETC.

Duke - apparently you dont understand the significant differences between a TEAM and INDIVIDUAL event.

They are trying to find the best *team*

Also, the US and Oz compete already and South Africa are looking to join, so it's more than Europe.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Duke - apparently you dont understand the significant differences between a TEAM and INDIVIDUAL event.

They are trying to find the best *team*

Wow you know me so well...oh wait you seem to miss my point. The best team would be made of the best players in theory but since you can't have more than one codex, if the top two are say SW players, you may have to settle for 1 and 3, say a Ig player instead of 1 and 2.

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...

Theduke - no, its the best team of different codexes. Thats also a team.

A team is more than just getting the best players together, its about getting the best team that can function according to the rules of the TEAM game. You have one narrow, non-universal definition of "best team", that doesnt meet the definition of any team game out there.

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?

How is my definition of a team game more 'narrow' when it has less restrictions than your definition. Restrictions and new rules do not mean someone is more skilled to adapt to them. Like game guru Sirlin has said you could add a juggling contest to each move of chess, it would prove they are more skilled at juggling but it wouldn't do anything to add to the competitiveness of chess. There is nothing more team like about this; You only add up all of the individual points form each game. All the contest are one on one. Your team has little impact besides their captain's pick and codex. The ETC is seems more like some kooky contest for fun than anything someone could use to prove their players are better.

No, it proves they can put together a better team at a team game than another team can do so.

Odd that.

It very much is a team game, hence the strategy (team like!) over the matchups.

As I said: you dont appear to know the difference between a team and individual event.

Suggesting something is "kooky" and "for fun" (well, it is - please dont say you consider 40k a serious sport? because that would be hilarious!) is quite insulting to the players, dont you think?

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. One's opinion on how 'serious' 40k is doesn't matter. You're free to use the search bar to find countless 20 page threads on competitive 40k or whatever. The point is that they're claiming to throw a competitive event.

Did they ever actually claim to be throwing a competitive event?

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/

I think you're just seeking to find something to argue about with this. It's not a tournament, it's a 'team championship'. If the fact that they didn't allow special characters until now wasn't a sign it was not competitive, I don't know what would be.

Just do what nearly everyone else does when they hear about the ETC, ignore it. You'll live a longer, less stressful life.

With regard to your quote from their website, I don't think you could post that on wikipedia without immediately getting a [citation needed] slapped down on it

Fearspect wrote:I think you're just seeking to find something to argue about with this. It's not a tournament, it's a 'team championship'.

Now that's just painful stretch for semantics. I can't think of a championship that isn't determined in some type of tournament fashion but Whatever important part is the ETC is taking steps to be inline with what people want in a tournament not hold overs from 3rd edition codexes that hated SC and the escalating point levels.

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. One's opinion on how 'serious' 40k is doesn't matter. You're free to use the search bar to find countless 20 page threads on competitive 40k or whatever. The point is that they're claiming to throw a competitive event.

No, wrong

YOU keep harping it back to the individual players, when its the best team that is the point of the event. Thats what you keep constantly missing. The best football team doesnt necessarily have the best individual players. A team is more than the sum of its parts, and thats what you constantly ignore.

Banning SCs does not make it "not 40k" - oh, and competitive /= not "for fun". You claimed one thing, dont start claiming another - it makes your lack-of-argument weaker

I grow weary of this. The fact you claim I don't have an argument is proof enough this is going nowhere. I've stated my position. Believe what you wish.

Its proof that you dont seem to get the difference between a team and individual event, as you are unable to discuss competition without reference to "finding the best players"

Its a critical lack of knowledge on your part. Id suggest playing in some "kooky" and "for fun" team events which attract quite so many players as ETC does to gain a smidgen of experience before attempting to discredit others tournaments

important part is the ETC is taking steps to be inline with what people want in a tournament not hold overs from 3rd edition codexes that hated SC and the escalating point levels.

But Duke, the ETC has always been inline with what players want as it's the captain of each team who get to vote and pitch in their vote regarding the rulespack that will be used for each system. For players, by players, that has always been the motto of the ETC. It's not organised top-down but by a combined effort of the community that participates in it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Theduke - no, its the best team of different codexes. Thats also a team.

Well that's just nonsense and you know it. The best TEAM should not be forced to use codexes that their members do not necessarily play because the best TEAM doubles up on a codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Banning SCs does not make it "not 40k"

Yeah, it only makes it not 40k in the sense that it does not follow the rules in 40k that says you can use all the fething units in your codex.

Forced...by the players that run the tournament and set the rules, you mean? You are aware of how ETC is organised and run? I'll have to assume "no" based on your comments here ("forced", lol) - so then why are you commenting on something you are entirely ignorant of?

Are you a better player than someone else if you can perform better with an unfamiliar army than they can? The best TEAM is defined as the best TEAM working WITHIN THE RULES of the event, and in this case you have a better team if you can perform well despite not duplicating codexes. Its like saying golf played with a handicap in place isnt golf any longer.

Again, the best team is not necessarily the N best players across the board - this is true across all team sports. I' m amazed that you arent aware of this fact. 11 strikers dont make a very good football team, even if theyre the top goal scorers across all players and were all jointly voted PFA "player of the year"

Not that the armies are actually unfamiliar, if you spent more than a fraction learning abotu ETC you would see that teams dont exactly rock up with 8 GK players who have borrowed a DE army for the weekend.

finally - the rules in 40k dont say that. They say you can build your army from the units found within the codex, not "all" the units *all* the time. Hell, you still have "minimum points" SCs available in current codexes- so is a tournament that runs below the minimum points level to field those SCs "not 40k"? Oddly enough, no.

Your "arguments" are refuted, utterly and completely, as ever.