Yeah, sure. Invite me to a game and I'll get a team set up

Results of over a year ago do not promise anything for current strength.
So the explanation of Noobschool and Widsisz doesn't make sense.
If you want to look at modern results it's actually

1+2) Relite and Apex
3) WM
4) The rest

We'll be open to challenges against Apex and AHOL:
5 1vs1 games worth 1 point
3 2vs2 games worth 2 point
2 3vs3 games worth 3 points
Total score of 17, so first to 9 wins.

For the most representive kind of play it would be nice to get as many people to play. This also functions to give a better image about the depth of a team.

*I think that AHOL will prove more challenging then the average apex player in team games (excluding 2 or 3). Would be interesting to see how that pans out

@Those arguing Relite lacks depth in their team.
The 14-3 win against WM featured more then 10 different Relite players. Even the bad apples in our alliance (I presume that would include me seeing public opinion) all played and managed to gain an acceptable 8-1 result (some in team games).

Aranka's relite 'patriotism' at its finest.

no offense at all, aranka, but there are a few players in your clan that actually SUCK, i think Chris is right here. :P the average WG > avergae Relite

It's an open challenge regardless.
Apex and AHOL are welcome to disregard it if they so choose, although that would be sort of a pity seeing as everyone at least agrees we belong in the top 3 or could contend to be in the top 3.

Now that we're not in team A in the clan league (which caused some debate) we won't be able to prove it this year.
Personally I would advise Apex and AHOL to decline the clan challenge though.
Since although it would appear fearful, at least you avoid the risk of the WM challenge outcome :)

I would advise them to decline the challenge too, it would save the forum from more of your clan patriotism, though i guess its a good source of humour

@ Pulsey - Wait......Have I not won all my games against you ??

So far you've only shown me proof you've defeated 2 or 3 Relite members 1x.
That hardly seems like the type of evidence to claim these players suck.

I played Malamute and others and because some of their tactics didn't pan out like they wanted to it seemed like they were bad.
That doesn't lead me to conclude that they suck though........

Aranka, you'v played 1 game against me, and that was a game which i surrendered on turn 4 just becuz i couldnt be fucked to play it anymore, and the game was nowhere near over. :P but then regardless, yes, you have a game won over me.

Mostly when people respond by saying they couldn't be "fucked to play it anymore" means that inherently they realized they were losing.

Post the game here for others to judge if you don't mind

nah, if you play a lot with me, you'll find that i tend to ragequit even when i'm winning crushing victories...
that game was too long ago, i cbf to find it, but if you want to post it to show everyone how good you are because you beat a 15 year old in a 3v3 game, go ahead...
gotta go, dont wait for me to reply.

Aranka, since apex is democratic clan i am waiting responses for your challenge. But I am almost sure everybody will accept.

I accept your challenge. But of course, since you are the challenger i am to purpose the method.
3 players playing 3 players (9 games) in 1v1 worth 1 point
2 teams of 2v2 playing the other (4 games) in 2v2 worth 2 points
2 teams of 3v3 playing the other (4 games) in 2v2 worth 2 points

total 25 points

And Aranka, your advice is empty, because it does not reach us, there at least 7 players that has never seen even once a situation where he is beat by something of 1-5. And we played every player in every tournament. More often than not we must play a player of our own team to beat one another to finally have apex defeated.
So unless Relite is running a underground warlight scene, where all the best players are planning as to how to hide their skill, we would never back off challenge and I dont think we will never seen the situation you purpose since history tought us otherwise.

This method would just allow a singular group of players to determine the whole team.

I would be willing to play more games but allowing a limited number of players to play almost all the games won't give a fair representation of the depth of an alliance.

Why not make it
4 players playing 4 players 2x in different template 1vs1 (1 strat, 1 guiroma ??)
2 teams of 2vs2 might be fine - won't change it there
3 different teams of 3vs3 playing the other worth 2 points

Total 22 points
--> In case of a 12-12 draw we could do a 9th 1vs1 match by the respective "champions" of either clan in 1vs1 strat

i wont have 9 players, i dont see why we should be obligated to present X number of players.

About guiroma, i am against, but a few players might be for it.
the ladders settings + 3v3 random warlord nc is the most played templates, therefore the must fair.

I think I perhaps might be in favour of guiroma. Good girl, Aranka!

According to the unofficial Apex website which was updated 5 days ago you seem to have 5 members.
I don't know how valid this update is but breaching my own memory in the subject I would say it gives a fair representation.
Now I know some of those players might not be willing and/or inactive but I'm sure with such an active group of players you should be able to get at least 7 different players to play.

Only thing I'm saying is that there's no real point in a clan tournament if a group of 3 people take up more then 70% of all the games.
We need a fair division.

Dunga
Widzisz
Frank
Brisk
JSA
Grona
Me
Noobschool

Probably won't be able to do it:
Huruey
Luxis

Could we have a complete up-to-date Relite list?

We have unofficial website?? Didn't knew about it, mind sharing a link?

Probably won't be able to do it:
Huruey
Luxis

Huruey is semi-active lately, Luxis is on vacation, JSA is retiring(again), and soon I might leave for holidays for a bit too.
So, in case we accept this challenge, I would rather see it postponed a bit, if that's not a problem. But that's not a must, just my preference.

This method would just allow a singular group of players to determine the whole team.

Now I know some of those players might not be willing and/or inactive but I'm sure with such an active group of players you should be able to get at least 7 different players to play.

We have 10 players in apex at the moment. So, Apex is small team, even using 5-6 players in the challenge we rely on 50-60% of our players. So it does represent our level pretty well I think.

And honestly, I just fail to understand why 2vs2 and 3vs3 games should be worth more than 1vs1.
I would give 1 point for each game.

Dunga suggested that 2vs2 and 3vs3 be worth more himself.

Furthermore in most tournies, clan league and in national cup league team games have been worth more on average.
I think it's because in a tourney relatively less team games are played compared to 1vs1 games. Since you don't want to favour one over the other you divide the amount of points equally between both methods of play.

I like how people are putting Warlighters so low :) I noticed REGL CS and 101st Lynx were put in quite high by somebody; our Prolighters gave CS a close challenge if I remember correctly. I don't know who plays for Lynx so I can't comment on them.

Also, unlike in the past, we are recruiting more skilled players, challenging more clans, achieving more (Clan League proves this) and generally improving.

yet warlighters are probably the worse clan in terms of skill :/