ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Latest news and chat from the European Flames Of War Team Championship.

Moderators: ETC moderators, Keepers of the Peace

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:15 am

Well if the comitee posts a document in a public forum and dosent call for a vote then its obvious for everyone that they want comments on such documents before submitting the vote.

Some people take the time to actually read the documents and make some sugestions.

And then mr TD comes along and says, no comments allowed you must remain silent and vote, altough we arent putting forward a proper vote.

Perhaps is not being passive-agressive, its just being rude and a trouble maker.

Instead of pointing out people that want to help (because issues like attacking forts and incorrect lists are going to create problems on the ETC even if mr TD dont want to adress them), put forward a vote on your draft document... its only you who is dragging the process.
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

TheTonyDavis
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:26 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby TheTonyDavis » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:44 am

English isn't your first language, clearly. But please quote where I said that no one is allowed or should comment on the rulespack?

But nice to see you are capable of being polite! Its won you so many friends online before! :/
FOW Team USA 2014
FOW Team USA 2015 (champions)
FOW Team USA 2016 (captain)

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:35 am

TheTonyDavis wrote:What do you envision us doing with this information? We were tasked with creating a rules pack to submit to the captains council that brings ETC to V4 that is to be approved or not and if not we resume with changes. We were asked to do it as fast as possible and even chastised by some for wanting to see observable results for EW games and yet our work is sitting without then the actions done. A few captains providing input into what changes they would’ve made isn’t a vote. Also, keeping track of a few captains, or all of them even, opinions on the rules pack is exactly why the committee was formed so we didn’t spend endless time debating every minutia in the captains council. And yet here we sit doing exactly what we were supposed to avoid.


This post seems extremely agressive regarding those that comment in this thread... instead of making chouvinistic remarks about the level of english of foreigners please try to write clearly.

What exactly was your aim by saying list sudmission or attacking forts shouldnt be discussed?
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:16 am

Tony

I think while a separate vote normally happens in the break down of missions a key thing in V4 is that there are different sets of missions completely with different rules for Objectives. As this didn’t exist in V3 I would suggest that deciding whether to use more missions or vanilla is very much part of the how do ETc V4 framework.

I take your point on not wanting to go into all the detail on lists, I wanted to know if it was considered with the fort. It appears it hasn’t and for those reading this, we would have a situation where an attacking fort could auto win in some missions . This is a key V4 difference as you wouldn’t have had then attacking in V3 (combined with the change in obj taking rules in V4).

For the record I think the committee has done a great job, while I don’t agree with multiple formations that’s just personal opinion. However I believe the more missions or not is fundermental to decide as it’s a V4ism and effects the way other decisions interact. It’s also clear that further thought as to the deeper implications of the decisions needs to take place from everyone due to odd interactions on a V4 construct (eg fort and attack).

Unfortunately it seems very few people seem to be looking or active to see these submissions!
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:26 am

Certainly ussing updated or book mission packs is the sort of issue that needs to be discuss at this point even if the individual missions arent decided until the ETC takes place.

The fort issue might seem as a «detail» at this point but certainly the rulespack goes into «details» such as determining that vichy and free french are the same nationality.
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:37 am

Back to the point... as I understand it nothing prevents a team from picking six infantry list if all of them are of different nationalities. Is this intentional?

If you are not ussing battle plan selector for missions why adopt battleplans as a way to determine who attacks on a fixed mission?

Since you are going to house rule attacker and defender you might actually maintain the infantry/mech/tank hierarchy of V3 (quickest formation determines hole force)...or simply use the rulebook and roll right away to see who attacks an defends (which have the advantaje of being a simple, not time consuming method that encourages balance list build ups).
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:43 pm

As tony has said the committee has made their decision and to be fair we shouldn’t question or provide alternatives which they have thought of already.

I’d suggest if there is gaps they haven’t considered and perhaps need filling then that’s helpful but their recommendation on stances etc hasn’t been made and won’t change.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:35 pm

I didnt realised that the existence of a comitee ment that captains couldnt even ask or comment on the rulespack... IE that captains are therefore limited to voting yes on a given and closed propossal without any possible alternatives... IE that captains lose in essence both voice and vote.

If thats the case why even make a vote if the comitee draft must be accepted without discussion?

Turn the draft into an official document and end this farce.
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

Rugi
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:51 am
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Contact:

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby Rugi » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:39 pm

I would like to step into this a bit guys.

I would first of all like to point out that to get to the point where the committee members agreed it took us A LOT of thought, arguments and just a lot of thinking through all of the combinations and deliver one big coherent package to the community.

Commenting on the taken decision and finding holes in the rules pack is actually desired as we can therefor fix them before the event itself (like the desert fort issue).
However when commenting on a certain general decision made by the committee, please show the respect to the people putting in many hours into making the rules by thoroughly reading through the discussion the committee had about the rule/topic you are commenting on.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1236948 ... oup_header

Please read it directly on facebook as the discussion is too long and complex (reply upon reply upon reply, half of them hidden once another is displayed etc.) to be copy-pasted here.

To answer the current questions:

Desert fort issue
Yes, this needs to be fixed as this exception was not covered by the committee. sovietpride or 96mgb, as you are one of the few active captains on the forum, could you perhaps present a solution in the current context of the rules pack?

Mulltiple formations and list submission
Forces of war is still the preferred format as the deducted point values can be inserted into a comment next to each unit.For example, the comment will need to state the "CORRECTED POINT VALUE XXX".
The percentages don't matter as the entire tournament will be played with the same number of points. 990 points are the 60% for the entire tournament.
Multiply company forces will have to combined into a single PDF. After list submission a few volunteers can put them together or before the list submissions clearly write the instructions and provide the tools for the teams to do so on their own. Each force will still be one PDF with all the details there.

Multiple companies lists
Please read the topic "Multiple companies" on the provided facebook thread and comment on this later on.
Afterwards I still challenge you to bring your entire team of infantry players :) You can bet at least 2 your guys will attacking tanks/mech.
And before anyone comments on what I said above, please read the committee's conversation about it on facebook.

Best,
Jan
Team Slovenia 2012-15 FoW player
Team Finland 2017 FoW player

Why would I rip off your arm if you have a bandage on your leg!?!

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:30 pm

Rugi,

I think a simple solution to the fort is to say that it can only be given a defend stance. That won’t definitely solve it as if paired against another defender it could mean a 50/50 auto win. Unfortunately it could still auto win under the new obj rules but at least the issue is limited as much as possible.

Option 2 and perhaps the easiest as it was never tested for V4 is to just ban it. I’ll be honest I’d run it as it’s cheese and this is the etc but as much as it pains me it is now broken.

Secondly I would suggest that more missions is utilized for these reasons

1. It’s veen specifically designed after feedback from the community.
2. It’s been shown to reduce draws
3. The battleplan system in it is far deeper than the original battleplan system meaning less chance of the same mission being played.
4. The battleplan system within it allows a lot more variable armies to be viable (ie you aren’t likely to end up with a tank army defending unless you specifically choose too)

Cheers

Mark
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Sorry other option is to say that the fort when deployed to in no-mans land must obey the same rules as deploying a spearhead is no closer than 16 to an obj. This stops a teleport attack and moving the obj into contest, therefore starting and ending a turn holding an obj and winning.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

User avatar
Jonny65
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:35 pm
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Location: Norn Iron
Contact:

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby Jonny65 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:45 am

I thought that the idea of this thread was to allow discussion between the CC and the committee on the rulespack, before it was put to a vote. If you just want to cut to the chase, I can start a voting thread.
2018 ETC Chairman, Mercenary for Team Scotland FoW
2015 - 2017 TNI FoW Captain (2016 on secondment to Team Canada)
2014 ETC Chairman, TNI Chairman, TNI FoW Player
2013 TNI Chairman, TNI FoW Player
2010 - 2012 TNI 40K Captain
2009 TNI WFB Captain

pizzaguardian
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:51 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby pizzaguardian » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:47 am

Jonny65 wrote:I thought that the idea of this thread was to allow discussion between the CC and the committee on the rulespack, before it was put to a vote. If you just want to cut to the chase, I can start a voting thread.



Jonny , sent you a pm via the forum please check that out.
2018 ETC 40K Turkey Captain - ETC Chairmen
2017 ETC 40K Turkey Captain - ETC Chairmen - ESC 40K Referee - WTC Head Judge
2016 ETC 40K Turkey Captain - WTC Head Judge
2015 WTC Merc

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:32 am

Sorry for the long radio silence. My understanding is that this thread is indeed to pick up comments on the draft rulespack. Thanks for the comments and I will post a revised version later today. I won't check it with the committee because that would take several more days. Rugi, Lynx, Helge, Tony, Sean - feel free to shoot at what I post! :)
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:23 pm

Here is the revised rules pack - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vK4Fvh ... sp=sharing
It takes taking account of the comments. The latest changes appear as track changes (i.e. they are underlined and appear in red).
Lists using a desert fort must choose a “defend” battle plan. I added a limit of no more than two such lists to avoid a conflict with the limit of two “defend” battle plans per team.
Missions will be from the “more missions” pdf and I replaced Hasty Attack by Contact.
I have kept multiple formations. Some posts were opposed but probably slightly more were in favour. I take the point about the practical problems with lists using multiple formations and so I have added some words about how to deal with it.
I added some wording on how to deal with the points changes. The good news here is that it has worked OK in quite a few UK competitions this autumn.
Finally, I have added a couple of practical points and clarifications that Santa (England’s coach) has raised with me by email. I think these are uncontroversial but just bear in mind that this is a bad time of year to annoy him. These points are:
• Card sleeves should be marked with the stance on one side only to avoid opponent knowing the stance before he places his card.
• Because some armies can take identical units from, say, a weapons slot or a divisional support slot, players are asked to declare to their opponents which such units are core (i.e. count for morale) and which are non-core at deployment.
• Each army’s stance is revealed in step when the card is turned over (in step 3, 7 or 8 of the draw).
Last edited by graham on Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

User avatar
TheMarko
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:41 pm
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Location: Kragujevac, Serbia

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby TheMarko » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:40 am

graham wrote:Santa – I did not change the timings of the games. My understanding is that the organisers will decide on that and that they, or someone else further up the ETC food-chain than me, will update the rulespack as needed.


We should declare our timing requirement, and then it is up to orgas to fit us in the schedule. Not something to stand in rulespack maybe, but still WE need to make clear that we need timing change through our dedicated chairmen at least. Also, whatever requirements we have (pairing cards, Attack/Mobile/Defend cards . . . and whatnot) needs to be put through our chairmen, and thus made known to the orgas . . . I may be off topic here, but I have just remembered Athens where we did not explicitly ask for pairing cards for FoW and of course did not get them. What we see as normal and integral part of of ETC, orgas might not because of lack of experience with either ETC or our system.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I was reminded of this sort of problem with the timings remark. If anyone deems necessary to discuss this in detail, please start a separate thread.
There is no problem, a large artillery template can't solve.

ETC 2012 - Team Serbia - Designated driver. ;)
ETC 2013 - Tech support for orgas, other organisational stuff.
ETC 2014 - WHB technical referee.
ETC 2015 - Sidekick FoW referee.
ETC 2016 - Chairman.
ETC 2017 - FoW referee, NOT the most favourite person on the venue :D.
ETC 2018 - Planning on being there, since there are no 'muricans in EW still striving towards the title of most consecutive ETC-s visited without playing a single game.

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:05 am

The thing on timings is something of a misunderstanding between Santa and me. I have therefore deleted it from my previous post. The rulespack has always contained info on timings and I have simply copied it over unchanged from last year's pack. As Marko says, if anyone feels strongly about it, please do start a separate thread.
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:50 am

There has been, er, limited reaction to the revised draft rules pack. I think it may be time to put it to a vote.
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:31 am

I think it’s hard to react Graham as people are unsure what they can speak about and what can be considered.

Speaking to a few people I think the decision not to use Banzai rather odd given there is an official PDF saying what is EW and the points are EW points. All I can see is a personnel perspective that Japs with smoke makes them tough. For me that isn’t an issue with applying them to V4 and therefore is beyond the scope of the committee. Everyone has equal access to them plus they aren’t auto attack any more.

Additionally team wales aren’t overly keen on the 2x2x2 card approach. We think it may result in games becoming to focused and match ups and top trumps resulting in clubbing in games. The current process is a nice balance between the 2.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:14 pm

Well, you can speak about anything in my view. The question is how easy your comments are to address. Your earlier comments seemed, to me at least, easier to address than Banzai and the 2,2,2.

I suspect that the inclusion of Banzai will be an issue that people have strong and diverging views about. (I remember having a conversation with one of the most mild-mannered gamers on the UK circuit and he was furiously passionate about it.) If we added Banzai, I would expect that we'd arouse as much opposition as support. On those grounds, I don't see a lot of benefit - from the point of view of building support for the draft rules pack - in including it. Furthermore, in the overall scheme of things it is not a really such a big deal as Japanese are available in Rising Sun anyway. If I am proved wrong and there is a widespread clamour for its inclusion, well, we have all the paperwork ready anyway.

In contrast, the 2,2,2 approach is more fundamental because it goes to the heart of the committee's proposed approach. I would be unwilling to revise it. The best would be to have a vote and see if it is acceptable. If the captains reject it, fine - there will be no hard feelings on my part.

As ever, these are just my views. I have no mandate to speak for the committee as a whole.
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:25 pm

Graham

When Banzai was muted on the thread on here there seemed very little push back especially when the conversion PDF was mentioned.

It’s fine you don’t want to discuss 2.2.2 but that’s what I mean by why people aren’t really talking. What can be discussed and changed.

If it goes to a vote then we need to make sure everyone is aware as it’s been so quiet here!
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

M1le
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:13 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby M1le » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:31 am

Personally I am against using Banzai or Gung Ho. If MW Monsters weren't allowed I clearly don't see the need to use non-historical companies which didn't see battle in EW.
FOW Team Slovenia Spokesman
Team Slovenia FoW player 2015

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:05 am

I’m not sure why you think the Japanese shouldn’t feature in EW from Banzai. They perfectly represent the forces used early in the war vs China.

Have you looked at the PDF which shows what is and isn’t allowed for EW? It’s based on history it’s not midwar monsters. The US really wouldn’t get any choice in EW (as you would expect) even if you allowed gung ho I didn’t think they could form a useful list. It’s really about Banzai.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:10 am

Also don’t forget EW is anything up to 1943. The Guadalcanal campaign which featured some pretty nasty land battles was starting Inf aug 42 that also fits perfectly with both books. It’s these forces that the PDF allows people to field on EW.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

graham
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:16 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby graham » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:10 am

mgb - EW is up to the end of 1941, not 1942.
Graham
Team England 2014 - 2017
England Captain 2018

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:48 pm

I’d ague that barbossa pushes it to 1943 but regardless the Japanese were active in a China and Banzai represents their forces better also Guam was 1941 so Gung Ho with the conversion represents those forces. Also there was loads of fighting vs the commonwealth. Why do we always gloss over the forgot part of the war!

At the end of the day it’s a official BF PdF saying what can and can’t be used for EW every team would have equal access.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018

sovietpride
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:50 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby sovietpride » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:04 pm

Banzai and Gung Ho are LW books altough there are some «pacific war» points which happen to be equal to the EW points... but that dosent turn those into proper EW books.

Japs have the rissing sun book available for EW... and the US forces in Guam in 1941 arent represented by the Gung Ho list (which use a much different 1944-45 organisation) on any sense.
«Team Spain FoW 2014 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2015 Captain».
«Team Spain FoW 2017 Captain».

User avatar
TheMarko
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:41 pm
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Location: Kragujevac, Serbia

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby TheMarko » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:44 am

Schedule should probably be changed to TBD since it is last year's . . . I'm pretty sure there is something else I've seen but I can't remember what. I'll have to go through again as soon as I find some free time.
There is no problem, a large artillery template can't solve.

ETC 2012 - Team Serbia - Designated driver. ;)
ETC 2013 - Tech support for orgas, other organisational stuff.
ETC 2014 - WHB technical referee.
ETC 2015 - Sidekick FoW referee.
ETC 2016 - Chairman.
ETC 2017 - FoW referee, NOT the most favourite person on the venue :D.
ETC 2018 - Planning on being there, since there are no 'muricans in EW still striving towards the title of most consecutive ETC-s visited without playing a single game.

tomizlav
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 10:30 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby tomizlav » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:25 pm

Some questions on multiple and allied formations:

1) Are the two provided pdfs for norwegians and dutch stand alone or an addition to an EW-book?
The reason for this question is the amount of allied french and british platoons you are able to take in this lists. How do these platoons qualifiy to take an allied formation out of e.g. Blitzkrieg?
In my opinon, and in accordance to p.8 of the rulebook, this has to be decided on "historical divisional background". Taking this into account the dutch should be able take four different french formations out of Blitzkrieg as allies, as the french 7th Army was stationed in the Netherlands. The Norwegians on the other hand have been supported by specially formed divisions consisting of french and british units and therefore cannot take them as allied formations out of the simple reason that they do not exist ruleswise.

2) Does the british armoured platoon from p.151 available to some french lists in blitzkrieg qualifiy them to take an armoured regiment as an allied formation?
The platoon has a seperate entry in the french section even though it is the same as on p.119 with restictions on size and type of tank.
(Curiosly the adressed armoured regiment can take allied french formations because the platoons available to them are taken out of the french section of the book)

3) it is stated in the provided rulespack, that Barbarossa and Barbarossa digital are treated as the same source.
What about the finnish panssari out of Barbarossa digital? Can they be used with rising sun and vice versa?
Team FOW Austria (Representative since 2013)

96mgb
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: ETC 2018 Rulespack Comitee results

Postby 96mgb » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:22 am

sovietpride wrote:Banzai and Gung Ho are LW books altough there are some «pacific war» points which happen to be equal to the EW points... but that dosent turn those into proper EW books.

Japs have the rissing sun book available for EW... and the US forces in Guam in 1941 arent represented by the Gung Ho list (which use a much different 1944-45 organisation) on any sense.


Not so when. Official PDF was released to convert the correct units to Ew.
Team Wales - 2014
Team Wales - 2015
Team Wales - 2016
Team Wales - 2017
Team Wales Captain - 2018


Return to “FOW - European Team Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest