Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

[djensen]

I had an idea that I briefly chatted with Greg and, I think, Mike over the weekend.

The biggest trouble in a tournament is time. First, you have to limit the time on games in order to even hold such an event in a short period of time (yes 1 to 3.5 days is short). The next trouble about time is not knowing how many turns you will complete in 4.75 hours. For 42SE, in very bad cases, 4 rounds, and in very good cases 7 rounds.

What if you make a bid for both IPCs and number of rounds?

I can win with the Allies with 12 IPCs in 6 rounds. I don’t know how bidding works from there but that’s how it starts.

As for penalties for not finishing your bid rounds in the allotted time, I’m not sure about that either.

[djensen]

@squirecam:

You cannot use electronic calculators. Period.

This was painful after nights of very few hours of sleep and your opponent hits you with a strategic bombing. A calculator would’ve speed up some of my purchase optimizations. Beyond that, I didn’t see much need for it.

With a calculator, the rule should be like the dice. Feel free to bring one but if you opponent requests to use it, you can’t say no. If both players don’t have one, no problem.

[miamiumike]

Dave,

Interesting thought - to be honest, I am not sure I looked at using a calculator for purchasing purposes - but with SBR and such, I could see where that might come in handy.

We always looked at it through the lens of using something like that to help people determine how much attack or defense they needed for a particular battle. That, I believe, is still something that will probably never be allowed.

MM

[questioneer]

@djensen:

Chess clocks are easily manipulated. It’s my turn, I make attacks, you need to chose casualties, and instead you can sit there and debate about it for minutes eating away at my time.

In chess, a player never has to wait during their own time for their opponent to do something.

I don’t think chess clocks are the answer.

Wrong, you don’t know how to apply them like I’m talking about.  That being said, chess clocks aren’t the answer ONLY for financial difficulties- $50 a clock for a good one.

[questioneer]

@djensen:

@squirecam:

You cannot use electronic calculators. Period.

This was painful after nights of very few hours of sleep and your opponent hits you with a strategic bombing. A calculator would’ve speed up some of my purchase optimizations. Beyond that, I didn’t see much need for it.

With a calculator, the rule should be like the dice. Feel free to bring one but if you opponent requests to use it, you can’t say no. If both players don’t have one, no problem.

Point being it would speed up the game to some extent- not a lot- but some.  There’s really NO valid reason why these can’t be used.  Haven’t heard one yet.  Foolish but hey, not my tournament.

Bidding on rounds and IPCs is interesting but if you bid 6 rounds and don’t get that far- what happens.

4-7 rounds for a 42 game DOES NOT determine a true winner- that’s ridiculous.  I’m so glad I did waste my money to go down there.  That makes AA.org tournaments so much better IMHO

[Gargantua]

Players should be planning their purchases, whilst their opponent is doing THIER turn.

A PEN and PAPER is all that is required, if it’s becoming too much of a headache.

[smo63]

@questioneer:

@djensen:

@squirecam:

You cannot use electronic calculators. Period.

This was painful after nights of very few hours of sleep and your opponent hits you with a strategic bombing. A calculator would’ve speed up some of my purchase optimizations. Beyond that, I didn’t see much need for it.

With a calculator, the rule should be like the dice. Feel free to bring one but if you opponent requests to use it, you can’t say no. If both players don’t have one, no problem.

Point being it would speed up the game to some extent- not a lot- but some.  There’s really NO valid reason why these can’t be used.  Haven’t heard one yet.  Foolish but hey, not my tournament.

Bidding on rounds and IPCs is interesting but if you bid 6 rounds and don’t get that far- what happens.

4-7 rounds for a 42 game DOES NOT determine a true winner- that’s ridiculous.  I’m so glad I did waste my money to go down there.  That makes AA.org tournaments so much better IMHO

Q, a calculator is fine.  All one does with that is make sure their math is correct.  It is NOT a dice roller or odds calculator.  There is a big difference.  If you feel that it is needed to speed things up, have at it…But the math in most cases should be simple enough…the point is, and Dave hits it on the head, when you are in a situation as one is in one of the tournaments, knowing what to buy, how much, and when is part of the strategy.  Having to go to a calculator to see if one should attack a certain area on the board based on an odds calculator is a whole different story.

And what do you mean you haven’t heard a valid reason yet?  You just aren’t listening.  And no, it is not foolish, the only thing that is, are statements like that.

[smo63]

You know, if is funny, we get back from a fantastic CON.  Things went almost flawless.  Had great discussions about how to possibly make things better for the future, etc.  Chess clocks, time, rounds etc. In every single case where we discussed the events in length, we had civil discussions because those talking about whatever the topic was, understood first hand what we being discussed.

And I know that some of you have been to GEN CON and have experienced events first hand.  But I am not sure why there is so much negativety when it comes to the discussion on the boards vs. when one talks about it FTF.  Again, I believe MM might have said it somewhere bad in a thread long ago, it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer when one really doesn’t know understand the concept of what is being discussed? :mrgreen:

[Gargantua]

@smo63:

You know, if is funny, we get back from a fantastic CON.  Things went almost flawless.  Had great discussions about how to possibly make things better for the future, etc.  Chess clocks, time, rounds etc. In every single case where we discussed the events in length, we had civil discussions because those talking about whatever the topic was, understood first hand what we being discussed.Â

And I know that some of you have been to GEN CON and have experienced events first hand.  But I am not sure why there is so much negativety when it comes to the discussion on the boards vs. when one talks about it FTF.  Again, I believe MM might have said it somewhere bad in a thread long ago, it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer when one really doesn’t know understand the concept of what is being discussed? :mrgreen:

I’m going to be very blunt/honest/direct here. But hear me out.

it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer

This is exactly the problem Smo, you hit the nail on the head. But unfortunately, you are also a primary contributer to the crime yourself.

Look for example here…

“I guess that what boards are for, so people can make aimless random comments about things that aren’t really relevant, and then proceed to start a debate over the issue.”

People tend to get offended when you paint them all with the same brush.  Just like you get offended when people have anything to say (constructive or not) that deviates from your own personal Agenda for Gencon.

At the end of the day, it’s your gig, your tournament, and your deal, thus the way you want to see it - is the way it will be.  The tournament is a favour to the fans.  So stop caring about what people you’re having disagreements with (who often don’t attend your event) think…

More importantly stop GENERALIZING that everyone who’s from the forum side of the world has a hate on for you, or is stupid, foolish, incompetent, and unable to contribute value.  Guys like Questioneer mean you no harm/foul. But it’s constantly interpretted by yourself ‘as such’.

That’s on YOU.

You’ll learn that YES there are idiots who HIDE amongst the community of the internet, in places like this, and who whine about everything…

but there’s no reason to burn down the house just to kill a few mice.

Realize this:

• Gen Con was a success,
• MORE people will come next year - likely including me,
• and this forum is NOT YOUR ENEMY.

The problem is just one or two people who are VERY JEALOUS of your success and popularity.  People who are just as jealous of other personalities on the internet, as they are of the ones in real life.  Ignore their spit spat - and DON’T ENGAGE them.  It just fits to make you look bad, because when you strike out, you tend to strike at all of us here; and that’s not cool.

[questioneer]

Well said Garg,

That being said things are looking good for me to come down next year also.  Greg and I have had some jabs at each other.  I don’t want to get into that right now- we’ll just say that we disagree on a few things about tournament play vs. online play and players vs FTF play and players.

On a more productive side, as Greg said, a DICE ROLLER is a big difference because of the “trust” factor of the program used- that’s understandable- a little paranoid- but understandable.  However, having a CALCULATOR and having an ODDS CALCULATOR is really no different.  They both essentially count the total pips and divide by 6 to get the number of hits.  The ODDS CALCULATOR just does it faster.  That’s it.  So no Greg, you HAVEN’T yet given a solid reason yet as to why these can’t be used.

I like the way the G40 tourny is set up- hope it stays that way.  Though I think the LEAST number of rounds attain should be 10 not 8.  BTW, if the teams don’t reach the number of rounds attained then what happens??? Are they both disqualified???  Both accusing each other of stalling???

As for AA50- I have always disliked that format- 42 w/o NatObj.  Much preferred 41 with NatObj.  I understand why you do this though.  I just don’t like it- so I will never play in that tourny.

AA42- I really think this the true tournament game- it is a tweener between 1st ed and AA50 w/o all the bells and whistles to worry about.  I think it deserves another hour- up to 6hrs per round, because 4-6 rounds IMO doesn’t give you a good picture of whose winning.  At 6hours and hopefully faster play by next year 6-8 rounds is more attainable and better served.

Anyway, my 2 cents.  I’ll probably come down next year but I may or may not play Axis and Allies.  Last time I came all I played was the Catan tourny and AAtourny.  I’m tempted to come down and just enjoy the Con.  I don’t know we’ll see.  Maybe I’ll come to Origins to play AA and come to GenCon to just enjoy it- we’ll see.

[smo63]

@Gargantua:

@smo63:

You know, if is funny, we get back from a fantastic CON.�  Things went almost flawless.�  Had great discussions about how to possibly make things better for the future, etc.�  Chess clocks, time, rounds etc. In every single case where we discussed the events in length, we had civil discussions because those talking about whatever the topic was, understood first hand what we being discussed.�

And I know that some of you have been to GEN CON and have experienced events first hand.�  But I am not sure why there is so much negativety when it comes to the discussion on the boards vs. when one talks about it FTF.�  Again, I believe MM might have said it somewhere bad in a thread long ago, it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer when one really doesn’t know understand the concept of what is being discussed? :mrgreen:

I’m going to be very blunt/honest/direct here. But hear me out.

it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer

This is exactly the problem Smo, you hit the nail on the head. But unfortunately, you are also a primary contributer to the crime yourself.

Look for example here…

“I guess that what boards are for, so people can make aimless random comments about things that aren’t really relevant, and then proceed to start a debate over the issue.”

People tend to get offended when you paint them all with the same brush.  Just like you get offended when people have anything to say (constructive or not) that deviates from your own personal Agenda for Gencon.

At the end of the day, it’s your gig, your tournament, and your deal, thus the way you want to see it - is the way it will be.  The tournament is a favour to the fans.  So stop caring about what people you’re having disagreements with (who often don’t attend your event) think…

More importantly stop GENERALIZING that everyone who’s from the forum side of the world has a hate on for you, or is stupid, foolish, incompetent, and unable to contribute value.  Guys like Questioneer mean you no harm/foul. But it’s constantly interpretted by yourself ‘as such’.

That’s on YOU.

You’ll learn that YES there are idiots who HIDE amongst the community of the internet, in places like this, and who whine about everything…

but there’s no reason to burn down the house just to kill a few mice.

Realize this:

• Gen Con was a success,
• MORE people will come next year - likely including me,
• and this forum is NOT YOUR ENEMY.

The problem is just one or two people who are VERY JEALOUS of your success and popularity.  People who are just as jealous of other personalities on the internet, as they are of the ones in real life.  Ignore their spit spat - and DON’T ENGAGE them.  It just fits to make you look bad, because when you strike out, you tend to strike at all of us here; and that’s not cool.

Gar,

I heard you out.  Fair enough.  You make some good points, but I really want to comment on some of the things you said but don’t have time…will have to wait till tomorrow…thanks for the thoughts and opinions though.

The only thing I will say now, is that maybe it is I just don’t understand where you guys are coming from?

My point is, whether you want to think I accept constructive critism or not is your view point.  I accept all thought and suggestions openly.  It is when people start attacking the systems that gets me in a defensive mood.  More later…

By the way, you can go to the Swamp and check out the photos from GEN CON on my end.  Dave did a great job on his end…

Thanks,
Greg

[djensen]

The biggest problem is that most people have not tried the tournament system that you’ve created. There’s a lot of speculation on was would and would not work from the folks who post here and have not tried it. I think there was only one person involved in the conversation who tried your tournament rules and had a ton of contrarian feedback.

Despite my complaints of slow play in the finals, I think the system works great. Some people, some teams play at a certain pace and don’t want to be rushed. We got through 5 turns at that’s the average. Also, the end time rules are probably one of the best aspects of the tournament rules, in my opinion.

One improvement that I would suggest is based on the dice rules. You must allow your opponent to use your dice if asked. I would suggest the same thing for calculators. You may optionally bring a calculator and if your opponent doesn’t have one, you must allow them to use theirs. I would limit it to straight up calculators and not smart phones with calculators. There were a handful of situations where my buys would’ve gone faster with a calculator, this is especially the case when I had damage on a factory.

Next, at the convention, I started suggesting the idea of a bid for not only IPCs but also the number of turns, with a cap. Not sure if this is the way to go or not but I think this could be the start of something. The problem, again, is time.

[Gargantua]

You must allow your opponent to use your dice if asked

Never!

[djensen]

Oh, another thing. Despite the fact that I lugged my A&A 50 game to Indy, I didn’t play. There were a few reasons.

1. The primary reason above any other was that I was really interested in the new Axis & Allies 1942 Second Edition. Not playing the tournament allowed me to get another practice game in.

2. It allowed me to play A&A Airforce Minis and in teh A&A Naval Minis War at Sea League, which was a blast!

3. I overcommitted my schedule and needed a break.

4. Personal preferences didn’t match up with the tournament rules.
4.1. Now that we have 42SE, the map is just a few spaces smaller and I think the setup is almost as interesting if not more interesting than AA50 setup.
4.2. With that having been said, the only thing that would make AA50-41 or AA50-42 more interesting to me are optional rules, namely National Objectives. Adding National Objectives makes AA50 the “inbetween game” of 42SE and Global. Shorter than Global but very directed.

Final thoughts. I think that 1942SE is going to be the standard tournament game now and fewer and fewer will play AA50 unless there is a reason. Fewer people have access to the game and it’s a big hassle to carry around. In a sense, beginners aren’t going to be playing this going forward. Therefore, it should be okay to add National Objectives and other optional rules (except tech, tech makes the game a coin flip). Maybe you have to add an extra 30-45 minutes to the game time but that is still much shorter than Global. Keep in mind, this is all guided by my personal preference for National Objectives in AA50.

[Gargantua]

Good point D.  Anyone who’s lugging AA50 around IS a fan of the A&A Franchise, and should have some idea of what they’re doing.

Time to evolve!

[djensen]

With that having been said, there were some very good reasons, with which I agree, for not including National Objectives in the past.

[questioneer]

Djensen,

I agree with you for the most part.  My problem is with the formats of some of these games.  Again, I understand WHY Greg does this, I just don’t like it.  To me, you can’t tell me that playing 5-6 rounds in a 42 game or AA50 game determines a real “champion”.  It like you’re playing half a game.  So IMHO maybe there should be HALF a trophy. :lol:- just a little joke there.

Again, I’m not criticizing Greg’s job on the Cons, it just the way it is.  Time is always the issue.  That’s why, the “purest” form of AA tournament play is online where you can actually finish the game.

[djensen]

@questioneer:

Again, I’m not criticizing Greg’s job on the Cons, it just the way it is.  Time is always the issue.  That’s why, the “purest” form of AA tournament play is online where you can actually finish the game.

I don’t think online tournaments are the “purest” for a few reasons. First, I think the “purest” would be an in person game that runs for minimum 10-12 turns, maybe fewer. I love playing online and I think it makes you a better player in general but in person play is different. Are your friends going to tolerate you using an odds calculator face-to-face? Or taking 30-40 minutes to do, undo, and redo your combat moves? I personally prefer face-to-face because of the social aspect. I also think that you end up using more intuition without the aid of a calculator.

Again, I like online tournaments and online play but this is a face-to-face board game. As for “purest” tournaments? I don’t know the answer to that. And then there’s the dice. Oh the dice.

[djensen]

@smo63:

But I am not sure why there is so much negativety when it comes to the discussion on the boards vs. when one talks about it FTF.  Again, I believe MM might have said it somewhere bad in a thread long ago, it sure is nice to hide behind the screen of your computer when one really doesn’t know understand the concept of what is being discussed? :mrgreen:

Part of it is Internet snarkiness.

The other part is the problem with medium and circumstances of posting online. I wouldn’t say that people are hiding but they are hidden by some amount of anonymity and more do by physical distance. Online you have less of a personal relation with the folks on the other end. When there is disagreement, the issues of this really come out. Everybody, has a few voices online. One is fairly close to our conversational voice, which peeks out every so often. Another is the distortion of your true voice, i.e. “that’s not what I meant when I said …” voice. It’s usually more harsh and seemingly more negative. One more is the reaction to somebody else’s distorted voice an this is where tension grows and sparks fly.

It’s tough to get it right. I think we’re doing a better job by doing things that would be redundant in a face-to-face conversation: saying you grok what the other person said, allowing people to have opinions, realizing that you just might disagree and there’s nothing that can be done, and allowing blue sky brainstorming. If it ain’t broke, that’s not a fun conversation so poke holes, brainstorm, and maybe we just end up at square one but in the process maybe we learn something. Maybe somebody who has never experienced these things comes along and learns something too. A newcomer may have all of these questions and more but the online public discussion may help them understand why.

[miamiumike]

Well, I guess it was too good to be true, eh?

We had a wonderful GenCon with events going on non-stop and tons of new faces. Yup, we got a lot of feedback on things - most of it good and constructive. New faces will provide that. And yet, then, here, I get to read about all the things that were wrong or that sucked or that people who were not even there did not like….sigh…

I think we have covered how playing FTF is a LOT different than playing on-line and why the two have to be set up differently. Further, I think we have covered why playing in a FTF tournament with limited amounts of time is a LOT different as well from playing ‘regular’ FTF.

Q - you said that you don’t like this or that and you will never play in the tournaments because they are not set up exactly as you would want them to be. Well - that is YOUR loss. You miss out on a lot of fun that many other people who realize and accept certain parameters need to be in place. I hate to say this - I really do - but there is a large part of me that hopes you DO never play - because I would not want to have to listen to you, in person, complain about how much the tournament you just played in sucks so badly.

You also say that Greg (and by proxy, me) have not given you a good reason to NOT use computers and dice calculators at FTF events. I’ll take the low hanging fruit and respond by saying you have provided NO good reason to do so. But, if you insist…

a) it will slow the games down as people watch the other team input 20 different combinations of one less infantry or one more tank over and over to get to the exact balance they want.

b) there is no room at the tables for anything except MAYBE a smart phone or iPod / iPad. Things are already cramped in many cases - having a space for a laptop (or two) just isn’t realistic in most cases.

c)  Using a computer to make decisions for you rather than on their own SKILL at playing the game. That may be my “a-ha” moment. Part of the SKILL of playing A&A is figuring out what to buy and when and what to attack with and when. Using a computer to make those decisions for you seems to cheapens this. You talk about ‘purist’ form of playing the game - I am pretty sure using a calculator to determine how you play the game is kinda far from ‘pure’.

d) Lastly, and this will sound arrogant - Greg has been running A&A tournaments without them for 19 years now and with the exception of a few people who have never even played in his events, there ain’t a lot of discussion and pushing to do it. You know - the ole ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ concept. Greg can say we are not going to use them because I think he has earned that right.

I think I can speak for Greg when I say that our biggest concerns coming out of GenCon were a) formatting tournaments in such a way to allow people to play in more than one if at all possible b) changing the format of the qualifiers for the AA50 tournament in some way c) determining what changes to the AA42 2nd Edition tournament are needed (if any) based on our feedback and d) if we should add a 1941 tournament to the schedule next year and if so how to prevent ourselves from losing what little sanity we have due to too many things going on at once!

I hope someday you do decide to play in the tournaments and accept them for what they are - an imperfect - but damn fun way to spend a weekend (and I defy you to find ANY GM at GenCon or otherwise that provides as much in prizes and give-aways that Greg does - certainly not when you consider the overall population of players in all his events).

If we truly got a sense that we would somehow grow our ranks by making changes to the way things are done, do you not think we would do that? I can GUARANTEE you based on doing this with Greg for 5 years now and talking to many, many players, that adding things like chess clocks, battle simulators and the like will most likely drive people AWAY from the events, not draw them IN.

I am self-imposing an end to more of this type of discussion because I think I have said everything I can on the topic. Know that your comments are always welcome - but that they would be much better received if they were provided in a more constructive fashion.

Now - where did I put my dice - still haven’t found them from unpacking!!

MM