Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

@smo63:

@questioneer:

@smo63:

Now, serveral years ago, we came up with the system. � And since we have continually adjusted accordingly to the games changing. � But since then we still have not seen a reason to give SF a bonus. � That is NOT to say that now with the new board it might change, but until we play test it in this environment, I can’t say. � And I can’t change the system over night just to please a few. � After GEN CON, if enough people believe that it should change it should.

Ok so answer this…why then was SF not given a bonus to begin with???  I mean why not give Calcutta zero or Leningrad or any other city zero.  Did it really come up in playtesting that SF is worthless???

I mean you literally give no reason for Japan to be aggressive in the Pacific…am I missing something here???  It almost funnels the game to a KJF it seems by doing this, no???

What I do remember was that the bonus system was created to weight VCs more for an IPC victory in tournaments b/c usually a VC would not be accomplished in time.  I remember being a part of this discussion with Larry on this and I remember talking about these specific ratios.  However, I also remember when the final version came out that I was shocked that SF got zero bonus points.

Since you know that Larry would defer to you, then why do tell me to complain to Larry???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order.  And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused.  When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry?  I believe I said,  “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move.  An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best.  If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over.  If you try and fail, Japans game is over!  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it. Â

Now, that is in FTF games.  Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

I dont agree. If USA is going KGF, there was nothing in revised preventing an attempt by Japan to take LA. Except making LA worthless to take compared to India…

Making LA worth 0 was a bad move. In any case, the system itself is no longer necessary…

@DizzKneeLand33:

I have no clue what I’m talking about, but when I envision a “Masters” tournament, I would envision players playing 3 or so different versions of A&A in double-elimination brackets with some sort of scoring system between games.

Yes, it would take a while, but it’s a “Masters” tournament.  It could be an entire week of A&A bliss…. ;)

There just isnt enough time for that, not to mention people play other games. Greg does have a trophy for someone who plays different games as you suggest, but that isnt typical of everyone.

Completely agree with Squirecam here on both counts.  Bad for LA to be zero- totally disagree with your premise on this Greg.  That being said, I don’t think the bonus system is needed anymore anyway- it was for Revised and that version is long gone.

However, I have yet to receive the new 42 game and I will have to play it a few times to know for sure.  Like the preview show, it looks like a pretty different game from 1st ed and AA50 in a lot of ways.

@smo63:

@djensen:

Albiet at times snarky, this makes a lot of sense. If you walk up (without reading the online catalog of events on the hard to navigate GenCon site) and want to play an A&A and have an A&A game with you, you should be able to play (without anything else). If Wizards were willing to provide clocks, it would be different but they will not.

I also think the idea of chess clocks at a masters or invitation only tournament makes a lot of sense too.

I know I’m going to see some arguments about chess tournaments and chess games not coming with clocks but, IMO, that is completely different.

Greg, how do you handle turtling? Or slow beginners? I can see an experienced player losing to a beginner if they have bad rolls and can only get through 4 rounds. And extra 2-3 rounds on top should even the playing field but if the beginner is not fast enough, it’s not fair to the experienced player.

Finally, personally, I’m going to download a chess clock app on my iPhone for $1 and use it during the tournament. The other player need not participate but I would like to know for my own benefit, how long I’m taking to complete my turns and if I’m getting faster as the tournament proceeds.

Dave,

Great question.  That does happen on occassion.  But I have never had it cause a problem with the outcome of a game.  And I will say never.  That is when a newer player comes to the table vs. a vet.Â

Where the abuse occurs is with the vet vs. vets.  They try and abuse the system.  They try and pit their opponent against the clock so to speak and then accuse them of stalling.Â

My point is this is suppose to be fun.  And no one wants to be staring down the barrel of a clock as well as your opponent.

Now, how do I handle this.  I used to have written in the rules that there were to be "No Stalling"  If this happens may result in Forfieture.  Then I even went as far as to say, that you will get one verbal warning and then if your opponent complains again, and the judges believe that you are in fact trying to stall, you could get disqualified.

I have since taken that out becase with the “END TIME” rules, we now, never have that problem.Â

http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/EndTimeRules2012.pdf

Now the “End Time” rules were created by those that have played over the years and I have tweaked them to meet each new games requirements.Â

In these rules, I state that if you do not get to a certain round you are playing too slow and need to speed things up…

Hope this helps…

The end time rules came about specifically because of complaints of stalling. And truly they do work well. You know far ahead of time what the ruling is going to be, and know which is the “last” round. Even if 30 minutes are left there is no way to “rush” through that round.

I also think the better players play a more “open” game. In other words, they have a strategy that gives them a chance of winning in round 4-8. They dont need round “7” for instance to make their strategy work. And you can tell by pacing where you might end up and buy/plan accordingly.

Or just wing it…;)

@squirecam:

@smo63:

@questioneer:

@smo63:

Now, serveral years ago, we came up with the system. � And since we have continually adjusted accordingly to the games changing. � But since then we still have not seen a reason to give SF a bonus. � That is NOT to say that now with the new board it might change, but until we play test it in this environment, I can’t say. � And I can’t change the system over night just to please a few. � After GEN CON, if enough people believe that it should change it should.

Ok so answer this…why then was SF not given a bonus to begin with??? � I mean why not give Calcutta zero or Leningrad or any other city zero. � Did it really come up in playtesting that SF is worthless???

I mean you literally give no reason for Japan to be aggressive in the Pacific…am I missing something here??? � It almost funnels the game to a KJF it seems by doing this, no???

What I do remember was that the bonus system was created to weight VCs more for an IPC victory in tournaments b/c usually a VC would not be accomplished in time. � I remember being a part of this discussion with Larry on this and I remember talking about these specific ratios. � However, I also remember when the final version came out that I was shocked that SF got zero bonus points.

Since you know that Larry would defer to you, then why do tell me to complain to Larry???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order. � And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused. � When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry? � I believe I said, � “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move. � An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best. � If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over. � If you try and fail, Japans game is over!�  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it. �

Now, that is in FTF games. � Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

I dont agree. If USA is going KGF, there was nothing in revised preventing an attempt by Japan to take LA. Except making LA worthless to take compared to India…

Making LA worth 0 was a bad move. In any case, the system itself is no longer necessary…

OK, squirecam, why was it a bad move?  And why is it no longer necessary?

@questioneer:

Completely agree with Squirecam here on both counts.  Bad for LA to be zero- totally disagree with your premise on this Greg.  That being said, I don’t think the bonus system is needed anymore anyway- it was for Revised and that version is long gone.

However, I have yet to receive the new 42 game and I will have to play it a few times to know for sure.  Like the preview show, it looks like a pretty different game from 1st ed and AA50 in a lot of ways.

I guess I am wanting to know your thoughts on why it is no longer needed when some haven’t even played the game?

Is it just to disagree with anything that comes from my systems?  The tone of your e-mail sure makes it sound that way…?

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@smo63:

@questioneer:

@smo63:

Now, serveral years ago, we came up with the system. � And since we have continually adjusted accordingly to the games changing. � But since then we still have not seen a reason to give SF a bonus. � That is NOT to say that now with the new board it might change, but until we play test it in this environment, I can’t say. � And I can’t change the system over night just to please a few. � After GEN CON, if enough people believe that it should change it should.

Ok so answer this…why then was SF not given a bonus to begin with??? � I mean why not give Calcutta zero or Leningrad or any other city zero. � Did it really come up in playtesting that SF is worthless???

I mean you literally give no reason for Japan to be aggressive in the Pacific…am I missing something here??? � It almost funnels the game to a KJF it seems by doing this, no???

What I do remember was that the bonus system was created to weight VCs more for an IPC victory in tournaments b/c usually a VC would not be accomplished in time. � I remember being a part of this discussion with Larry on this and I remember talking about these specific ratios. � However, I also remember when the final version came out that I was shocked that SF got zero bonus points.

Since you know that Larry would defer to you, then why do tell me to complain to Larry???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order. � And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused. � When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry? � I believe I said, � “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move. � An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best. � If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over. � If you try and fail, Japans game is over!�  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it. �Â

Now, that is in FTF games. � Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

I dont agree. If USA is going KGF, there was nothing in revised preventing an attempt by Japan to take LA. Except making LA worthless to take compared to India…

Making LA worth 0 was a bad move. In any case, the system itself is no longer necessary…

OK, squirecam, why was it a bad move?  And why is it no longer necessary?Â

Bonuses are no longer necessary because 42 2nd ed has 13 VC. Now that Hawaii is added, either the allies or the axis will have more VC. No need for ties or IPC’s. Allies start out as 7-6 winners, and if nothing changes they win. Pacific scenario is already enhanced as Hawaii is a possible game winner…

@smo63:

@questioneer:

Completely agree with Squirecam here on both counts.  Bad for LA to be zero- totally disagree with your premise on this Greg.  That being said, I don’t think the bonus system is needed anymore anyway- it was for Revised and that version is long gone.

However, I have yet to receive the new 42 game and I will have to play it a few times to know for sure.  Like the preview show, it looks like a pretty different game from 1st ed and AA50 in a lot of ways.

I guess I am wanting to know your thoughts on why it is no longer needed when some haven’t even played the game?

Is it just to disagree with anything that comes from my systems?  The tone of your e-mail sure makes it sound that way…?

What Squirecam said on this above is right.  Hawaii is added.  So you don’t need to buff up the VCs with bonuses and with that now the Japs have options in the Pacific and can open up strategy for the game more which is always “good for the game”.  Things won’t lead down a mostly KJF path like before.

I’m not being vindictive here…seriously, Squirecam’s right.  The fact that he and I strongly agree on this point should hold some weight.

Ah…hold on…I see that you added Honolulu to the VC bonus list and gave it 10 extra.  Still think SF should be worth 10 also but hey I guess I’ll have to play it a 2-3 times before I make a judgment on it yet.  Hmmm…we’ll see.

Well, here you go Q.  After some thought about the reasons behind the IPC bonuses, I agree with you guys.  It is not needed since there is now 13 VC.

So, I would propose this:

Victory Conditions:

1. If your side controls 3 or more total Victory Cities than it started with (9 for the Axis & 10 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the US turn) you win the war.

2. If neither side has obtained the 3+ VC�s within the time frame allotted, the side with the most VC (Vicotry Cities) wins.  Since there are now 13 VC, there can not be a tie. So take this into consideration when bidding.

And on top of it, looking at the schedule for GEN CON, I believe I can move this event to a 4:45 long event.  Adding an hour.  Since it is SE and I don’t have to worry about second round times, I can get the first three rounds in on Saturday and have the final on Sunday.

So, what do you think?

Ok, now that we are moving forward on this subject and the Masters was brought up earlier, I guess now is as good a time than any to start talking about this…

The way I see it is the Masters Coming back in 2013 for our 20th year at GEN CON.  Kind of appropriate timing.

I believe the Masters will again place 8 teams by invitation only.  How the 8 teams are selected will still need to be ironed out but for starters: We could do the top 2 teams from the AA50 tournament and the top 2 teams from the 1942 tournament, both from this year.  That is 4 teams.  Then the winner of next years Origins Tournament is 5.

And based on Q’s desire for me to include outside qualifiers, I could see 2 regional qualifiers being invited.  Maybe a northern event and a western event.  Then maybe a wildcard or something like that.  Now, again, this is just the first stab at it.  We will be able to talk about it more at GEN CON and afterwards but it is just a start…

Your thoughts?

@smo63:

Well, here you go Q.  After some thought about the reasons behind the IPC bonuses, I agree with you guys.  It is not needed since there is now 13 VC. Â

So, I would propose this:

Victory Conditions:

1. If your side controls 3 or more total Victory Cities than it started with (9 for the Axis & 10 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the US turn) you win the war.

2. If neither side has obtained the 3+ VC�s within the time frame allotted, the side with the most VC (Vicotry Cities) wins.  Since there are now 13 VC, there can not be a tie. So take this into consideration when bidding.

And on top of it, looking at the schedule for GEN CON, I believe I can move this event to a 4:45 long event.  Adding an hour.  Since it is SE and I don’t have to worry about second round times, I can get the first three rounds in on Saturday and have the final on Sunday.

So, what do you think?

Sounds good to me.  Also, this makes it a lot easier for online guys to play this format also minus the hourglass factor.
I’d like to see 5:45 next year for this event (guarantees up to 7-8 rounds probably) but I won’t push it.

@smo63:

Ok, now that we are moving forward on this subject and the Masters was brought up earlier, I guess now is as good a time than any to start talking about this…

The way I see it is the Masters Coming back in 2013 for our 20th year at GEN CON.  Kind of appropriate timing.

I believe the Masters will again place 8 teams by invitation only.  How the 8 teams are selected will still need to be ironed out but for starters: We could do the top 2 teams from the AA50 tournament and the top 2 teams from the 1942 tournament, both from this year.  That is 4 teams.  Then the winner of next years Origins Tournament is 5.Â

And based on Q’s desire for me to include outside qualifiers, I could see 2 regional qualifiers being invited.  Maybe a northern event and a western event.  Then maybe a wildcard or something like that.  Now, again, this is just the first stab at it.  We will be able to talk about it more at GEN CON and afterwards but it is just a start…

Your thoughts?

Question- what game would be played at the Master’s next year???  I would assume it would be 42 2nd ed.  Why then would there be invites for the AA50 players???

If 42 2nd ed is played for Masters next year I would make the bids:

2 finalists from the 42 tourny this year
2 finalists from Origins in 2013
2 finalists from AA.org 42 tourny (same format minus timeclock of course- or just establish a set round completion- I would say 7 rounds of play)
2 from other FTF tournys or wildcards

The last 2 invites could come from the WBC in Penn. or 1 from Western tourny if someone runs it.
I could run a Northern tourny at UCon in Michigan if you want but that is up to you.  I’m already doing a Dominion Qualifier there, but I could do an AA tourny Qualifier the next day for 42 2nd ed.  So maybe the last 2 are 1 Western and 1 Northern FTF tourny bids???

Greg you give me the opprotunity to run a qualifier for your tournament, I can swing the advertising, prizes and crap between UCon and myself.  I can also do the AA.org tourny.  Of course I would not play but only run it.  I would enjoy that quite a bit.

Greg your starting to get my hopes up here.  I may have recant everything I’ve said about you. :x

@questioneer:

@smo63:

Ok, now that we are moving forward on this subject and the Masters was brought up earlier, I guess now is as good a time than any to start talking about this…

The way I see it is the Masters Coming back in 2013 for our 20th year at GEN CON.�  Kind of appropriate timing.

I believe the Masters will again place 8 teams by invitation only.�  How the 8 teams are selected will still need to be ironed out but for starters: We could do the top 2 teams from the AA50 tournament and the top 2 teams from the 1942 tournament, both from this year.�  That is 4 teams.�  Then the winner of next years Origins Tournament is 5.�Â

And based on Q’s desire for me to include outside qualifiers, I could see 2 regional qualifiers being invited.�  Maybe a northern event and a western event.�  Then maybe a wildcard or something like that.�  Now, again, this is just the first stab at it.�  We will be able to talk about it more at GEN CON and afterwards but it is just a start…

Your thoughts?

Question- what game would be played at the Master’s next year???  I would assume it would be 42 2nd ed.  Why then would there be invites for the AA50 players???

The masters game should be AA50…… :-D

It would if they would reprint the thing- but they didn’t

Masters should be 42 2nd ed.- it a more universal game for everyone- FTF or online

There are no 41/42, Nat Obj or no Nat Obj, Tech or no tech arguments in the new 42 game

This game was made for FTF and online tourny play.  They left all the “candy” options (Nat. Obj., Tech and Special Rules) for G40 which was probably a smart move by WOTC.

The whole 41, 42, G40 graduated game thing was a great idea by WOTC- gotta give them some credit there for doing it right- finally.  AA50 will still see some play but with limited copies it will go the way of Classic in 4-5 years.  Therefore I don’t think it deserves the seat as “the game” for the Masters.  41, 42 2nd ed. and G40 are the future line for AA now.  WOTC has definitely made that clear.

As much as it pains me, I agree with Questioneer - AA42 2nd Edition needs to be the Master’s game.

It will be widely available
It is a nice step up from the previous 42 (and Revised) which was always the Master’s before
It has a very clear cut victory condition - no need to add up IPCs or anything like that
It has no Tech, no NO or anything to bog it down AND…
I think it might finally allow for a serious Pacific war - assuming that we can get more than 5-6 rounds in

I also think that we can use some of the winners and runners-up for various tournaments - but I think AA50 can and should be a way to populate the masters group. People who win AA50 are very good players in their own right. I would even say that somehow get some G50 people in there, but the problem is making sure that a tournament had enough people entered in it to make it worthwhile.

MM

Wow…I feel like we are all sitting down, holding hands and singing ku-ba-ya.  Very surreal indeed. :?

Here’s another simple format if you didn’t want North and West qualifiers:

3 from 42 finalists from GenCon 2012 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)
2 from 42 finalists from AA.org - begin online March 2013 (same format- up to 7 or 8 rounds)
3 from 42 finalists from Origins 2013 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)

I would bump the Masters and Regular tourny for 42 game up to 6hrs- that way you are guaranteed 6-9 rounds of solid play.  The difference between 5 and 6 hrs is nil IMHO.

@questioneer:

Wow…I feel like we are all sitting down, holding hands and singing ku-ba-ya.  Very surreal indeed. :?

Here’s another simple format if you didn’t want North and West qualifiers:

3 from 42 finalists from GenCon 2012 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)
2 from 42 finalists from AA.org - begin online March 2013 (same format- up to 7 or 8 rounds)
3 from 42 finalists from Origins 2013 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)

I would bump the Masters and Regular tourny for 42 game up to 6hrs- that way you are guaranteed 6-9 rounds of solid play.  The difference between 5 and 6 hrs is nil IMHO.

The Masters Tourney Hands down will be 5:45 hour rounds…as it has been in the past.  Most likely set up as a 3 rounds round robin, then the top 4 teams play in SE play to determine the champ.

There will be 2 divisions.  4 teams each and you play each team in your division once.  The top two come out to play in the SE bracket.  I would seed all 8 teams based on how they got iinvited to determine who plays were?

That is why everyone will have to play under the same conditions to qualify out side of having both AA50 and 1942 2ndEd filter in…

As for the game, the debate will start.  But yes, I might be leaning towards 1942 and not becasue it is a better game, but that is what WotC wants…

@questioneer:

@smo63:

Ok, now that we are moving forward on this subject and the Masters was brought up earlier, I guess now is as good a time than any to start talking about this…

The way I see it is the Masters Coming back in 2013 for our 20th year at GEN CON.�  Kind of appropriate timing.

I believe the Masters will again place 8 teams by invitation only.�  How the 8 teams are selected will still need to be ironed out but for starters: We could do the top 2 teams from the AA50 tournament and the top 2 teams from the 1942 tournament, both from this year.�  That is 4 teams.�  Then the winner of next years Origins Tournament is 5.�

And based on Q’s desire for me to include outside qualifiers, I could see 2 regional qualifiers being invited.�  Maybe a northern event and a western event.�  Then maybe a wildcard or something like that.�  Now, again, this is just the first stab at it.�  We will be able to talk about it more at GEN CON and afterwards but it is just a start…

Your thoughts?

Greg your starting to get my hopes up here.  I may have recant everything I’ve said about you. :x

Q, my thoughts and opinons on this have not changed and have been this way since we started the G40 dialogue.  That was my whole point of contention when we weren’t seeing eye to eye.  I believe that now that we are in a non-defensive mode regarding this, things can move forward without our personal opinion of what works compared to what works for the masses in this type of setting.  The other thing that I believe gets swept under the carpet in these threads is that I do always listen to you guys and escpeically the ones that I run the tournaments for.  Meaning, those that come and voice their opinions in person.  I know that not everyone can do this, but, the point is, that is were I run the events and that is were one has to be to voice their opinion on what works and what doesn’t…

Ex. next year I definetiely plan on having a novice tournament/event.  No one that has ever made it to the top teir of any tournament can play in it.  Thus giving those that have left the game due to the fact that they hated the fact that the top 4-8 teams were always the same…

Guys,

Also, soon as I get Larry’s blessing (which I don’t think will be a problem) I believe I have come to the decision on 1942 2nd Ed. Tournament for this year at GEN CON:

Victory Conditions:

1. If your side controls 3 or more total Victory Cities than it started with (9 for the Axis & 10 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the US turn) you win the war.

2. If neither side has obtained the 3+ VC’s within the time frame allotted, the side with the most VC (Vicotry Cities wins)  Since there are 13 VC, there can not be a tie. So take this into consideration when bidding.

Also, because I can, I have bummed up the event rounds to 4:45 hours.

Sweat and simple.  I will probably make this official sometime later on today…

Peace,
Greg