Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

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

@smo63:

@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…

1. Yes 42 2nd ed. for sure for Masters, Masters format is good with 8 teams

2. Regular play 5hr and Masters 6hr- that’s doable

3. Alright here is my debate.  Having 2 qualifiers from AA.org playing on TripleA.  5hrs essentially = 5-7 rounds.  6hrs. = 6-8 rounds.  So the time clock issue is solved.  So we play by your format and stop after a certain round - like 7 for instance.  Of course once they get to the Masters they would be on your time format. Â

Many people would sign up here to play so the online qualifier would be highly competetive (similar to Garg’s tourny here).  The 2 finalist could go to the GenCon Masters.  You would definitely get 2 teams that were be very good.  So as far as the quality of the teams, that is solved.

Dominion did this this year and it worked fine.  People could go to a regional qualifier and/or participate in the one online qualifier- sanctioned by RGG on dominionstrategy.com.  It was highly competitive.  The US Finals were in Chicago where the finals from all the FTF qualifiers and the online qualifier played.  There is no reason AA shouldn’t do this if other games can.

Yes the online format was slightly different, but they respected the play of the online gamers enough to give them a couple qualifying bids.  All arguments aside, you have to respect the play of the many very good players here.  I think this is finally an opprotunity to build a real bridge here.  Give us 2 qualifying bids to the Masters at GenCon and we will have made ammends.  I can run the tournament, we play by your rules (minus the time- we would just stop play at round 7).  I won’t even play in the tourny.  What do you think???

One thing to keep in mind too would be to keep track of 3rd and 4th place finishers in all these feeder tournaments. The Masters list will need alternates - IIRC, many years at least one of the teams could not make it to GenCon and an alternate team was added.

Also, Greg will need to document the rules regarding a situation where one person on a team can make it and the other cannot. IIRC here too, that was allowed - the one member of the team could find a replacement partner. Only if BOTH team members could not come, than an alternate team was slotted.

Is that correct Greg?

MM

Well, unless 42 2nd ed has a substantial turnout, its all moot. You only need a masters is there is a full “mega”.

We will see how many like this edition enough to play it.

@questioneer:

@smo63:

@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…

1. Yes 42 2nd ed. for sure for Masters, Masters format is good with 8 teams

2. Regular play 5hr and Masters 6hr- that’s doable

3. Alright here is my debate. � Having 2 qualifiers from AA.org playing on TripleA. � 5hrs essentially = 5-7 rounds. � 6hrs. = 6-8 rounds. � So the time clock issue is solved. � So we play by your format and stop after a certain round - like 7 for instance. � Of course once they get to the Masters they would be on your time format. �Â

Many people would sign up here to play so the online qualifier would be highly competetive (similar to Garg’s tourny here). � The 2 finalist could go to the GenCon Masters. � You would definitely get 2 teams that were be very good. � So as far as the quality of the teams, that is solved.

Dominion did this this year and it worked fine. � People could go to a regional qualifier and/or participate in the one online qualifier- sanctioned by RGG on dominionstrategy.com. � It was highly competitive. � The US Finals were in Chicago where the finals from all the FTF qualifiers and the online qualifier played. � There is no reason AA shouldn’t do this if other games can.

Yes the online format was slightly different, but they respected the play of the online gamers enough to give them a couple qualifying bids. � All arguments aside, you have to respect the play of the many very good players here. � I think this is finally an opprotunity to build a real bridge here. � Give us 2 qualifying bids to the Masters at GenCon and we will have made ammends. � I can run the tournament, we play by your rules (minus the time- we would just stop play at round 7). � I won’t even play in the tourny. � What do you think???

My Q to you is whether these would be “live” games….It is one thing to play “7” rounds. It is another to play 7 rounds in 6 hrs vs 7 rounds in a few weeks. There will not be time for calculators or lots of time to review moves at Gencon. Just something to keep in mind.

SCam,

Actually the games could be live,

If I set a dates for each round/sections then I could clock by posts here on the forums.

So like the Dominion tournies we could set the start time for example at 6pm on a Saturday for the 1st round, 6pm next Saturday for the 2nd round etc.  People would play on the forum using TripleA PBF b/c its fast and play…so actually yes we could do these “live”.

But hey if we are playing your format and catering to FTF standards then we want 2 qualifying bids for the Masters.

There would be no need for other FTF out in the North, South, West etc.  if there is Origins, GenCon and AA.org.  AA.org tourny would make it easy for others around the country to play in a qualifier and win a seat at GenCon Masters.

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.  We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw.  In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.  This should be no different.  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?Â

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.  This should be no different.  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

FWIW = for what its worth

As for the games you shouldnt mix. You wouldnt let the winner of a bulge or d-day tourney into the masters, would you?

Sure the winner of AA50 is just as good…but its a different game. Whatever the masters game is, it should be uniform to qualify.

Agree with Squirecam again…

2013

3 bids to the 2012 GenCon finalist for 42
3 bids to the 2013 Origins finalist for 42
2 bids to the 2013 AA.org finalist for 42

2014

2 bid for the previous year’s 42 finalist at GenCon
1 bid from Origins winner for 42
1 bid from AA.org winner for 42

@squirecam:

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?�

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.�  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.�  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.�  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.�  This should be no different.�  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.�  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.�  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.�  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

FWIW = for what its worth

As for the games you shouldnt mix. You wouldnt let the winner of a bulge or d-day tourney into the masters, would you?

Sure the winner of AA50 is just as good…but its a different game. Whatever the masters game is, it should be uniform to qualify.

Charles,

I agree here with the premise by which you are going on, but again, this being the first year back to the Masters, I believe you can make exceptions and if the games are similar enough it shouldn’t be a problem.  Your example for Bulge and D-Day in reference to choosing the game is like comparing applies and oranges.

And I agree with your line of thought that we have to first see how the 1942 event this year is even attended.  Meaning, If we have 4 teams again like last year, what good is it having the top 3 go?  And because of the situation with AA50, I don’t really see that being the game of choice for the Masters, even though, I would prefer that…

So, I don’t see a problem having the top 2 AA50 teams, top 2 1942 teams, and then go from there…

Also, if we are taking QT’s from other locales that I don’t run, it won’t really be the same either.  There will be differences…so, not sure I see the harm?

Now, you haven’t been dancing with any dragons lately now have you…three weeks.  Can’t wait…