Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. smo63
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 11
    • Posts 123
    • Best 12
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by smo63

    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Finally! Non-Moscow Axis victory! Do the Allies stand a chance?

      @Most:

      And on the back of the book it should read in huge font: this book is most likely filled with enormous and unforgivable errors. Please visit WotC.com/forums/wescrewedupagainbecauseweonlycareaboutMtG/ for how to REALLY play the game.

      You can say what you want.  I just report it.  I didn’t write them…

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      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

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Finally! Non-Moscow Axis victory! Do the Allies stand a chance?

      Yes, that should be correct.

      The way the rules should read in the book is:

      The rule book (on page 6 – HOW THE WAR IS WON) will eventually be corrected to read:

      On the map are thirteen victory cities crucial to the war effort. As the game begins, the Axis controls 6 of these cities and the Allies control 7 of them. The Allies begin the game controlling Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta, Honolulu, and San Francisco.  The Axis powers begin the game controlling Berlin, Paris, Rome, Shanghai, Manila, and Tokyo. The standard victory condition is if your side controls three more total victory cities than it started with (9 for the Axis or 10 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the U.S. turn), you win the war.

      Page 23 (WINNING THE GAME) will also be corrected.  The third column in the chart will read “9 for Axis and 10 for Allies” (or something similar) and “13”.

      You should also note that the German and UK starting IPCs as listed on page 6 are incorrect.  Germany should read 41 (not 40), and the UK should read 31 (not 30).

      Hope this helps…

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Finally! Non-Moscow Axis victory! Do the Allies stand a chance?

      @squirecam:

      @maxx001:

      Where did you hear this?

      We had our first game last night and assumed that Honolulu was an error and therefore ignored it as a Victory City.

      Has there been any official word on this???

      link please…

      Squirecam,

      Yes, it is a misprint in the rules and show be a VC…

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: 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?

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      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?

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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…?

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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?

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @questioneer:

      Greg, if I can try to be civil for a moment…what do you think of the idea of automatic bids into the Semi-Finals or Masters from a sanctioned AA.org tournament(s)???

      Sounds plausable.  We just need to make sure that what is done, is done across the board with the game mechanics, rules, and the like.  I have no problem setting something like this up.  We first need to reestablish the Masters before we start with eh automatic bids…but yes, makes sense and looks like a possible plan…

      Peace,
      Greg

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @questioneer:

      Greg,

      Another question though. � So on the bonus system with the 42 game that you and Larry developed back in the Revised days which carried over to 42- 1st ed and now 42- 2nd ed….are you saying we go to Larry for changes on those tourny rules??? � If we did, and he listened, you would then play by those rules??? � So you are letting him determine the tourny rules for GenCon since you don’t want me complaining to you??? � If we went to Larry and were successful, we wouldn’t be accused of “brainwashing” Larry again would we???

      I say this b/c I do think there needs to be some tweeks here. � It has been a few years and this isn’t Revised anymore. � LA should have Bonus points and maybe some ratios shifted around slightly across the board. � Also, I think the 42 2nd edition game should get 6hrs not 4hrs- well that’s going a little far ahead for next year I guess- gotta wait to see how things play out this year.

      Ah…so you do remember…

      As for pulling Larry into this.  Hey, you can do whatever you want.  I just want to give Larry credit where credit is due him.  But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.  I could bet if you did, he would say, talk to Greg.  I am not going to put words in Larry’s mouth, but I don’t believe Larry wants to have anything to do with what I do.  He has told me on more than one occassion and at GEN CON, I glad you do this and not me…

      The point being, he enjoys working with me, us, on rules of this nature, but when he sees what I have to go through at a CON to please the masses…he usually says, no thanks.  Now, again, that is in my own words.  And enough with the “brainwash” stuff.  Obiviously there must be some truth behind it or you wouldn’t continually be bringing it up…I stated my thought… move on…

      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.

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @djensen:

      Dave, again, I agree with you 110%.  And that will happen.  I plan on having a novice tournament next year for those that like playing competively but hate playing vs. the vets.  I have had many walk away from the game because they can’t beat the best players…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @djensen:

      @questioneer:

      So if GenCon or players are not willing to invest in a $40 clock, then we can stop this conversation right here.� That being said, chess clocks are the way to go in playing tourny AA IMHO.�

      Just some food for thought.

      I haven’t been to GenCon Indy but I understand from you folks and other people I know who have gone, there is a lot of opportunity to sign up on the spot and not in advance of arriving. If you require clocks (and don’t provide them) you’ll lose a lot of players. I think I’d rather see a ton of people playing A&A than a few.

      Bingo!  You just hit the head on the nail…exactly.  This does happen and many people come from all over to play.  And if they just don’t happen to get on AA.org or whatever forum and wouldn’t have the chance to check out my website for rules (not all inquiry minds have to know in advance before they get to GEN CON) before they get to GEN CON, there will be a lot of people walking away.

      Then when that happens, I am the one that needs to answer to WotC and Larry.  Not Q or Garg or whomever…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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…

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @questioneer:

      Chess clocks- I don’t think you understand.

      Q, I really think that you might be the one that doesn’t understand.

      Let me explain this to you in the simplest form I know how.  For starters, yes, we have discussed this and if I recall, it has been awhile, but in length regarding the use of chess clock timers.

      And I would appreciate if you could stop continually beating down the idea that “GEN CON” players are set in their ways.

      When was the last time you have been at GEN CON.  And could you please state for me the last time I changed or implemented a rule for game play at GEN CON or Origins based on what the people that come and play want?  Just throw out any one rule.  Be specific.

      I thought so.

      So, Dave, to answer your question and more specifically about game clocks.  I will NOT say they don’t work nor have I ever said we can’t use them or even considered using them.  They are actually a very good idea BUT only in a controlled setting where everyone knows ahead of time they will be used and agrees that they will be used.  That is problem number one and what Q and some of the other very talented AA players on this forum fail to understand.

      Problem two.  I run events and tournaments for AA board games.  When one comes to a CON, as you did back in LA, I have to provide an event for anyone and anybody that wants to come and play.  Then I have to make sure that anyone that wants to play, can understand, fairly easily, under what circumstances we play.  And in almost every case, I have to keep the game as close to the base OTB game as possible.

      When it comes to tournaments, and since I have been doing this 19 years now, we used to just let players play until a time when we knew we had to have each game stop in order to get the whole tournament in the time frame allotted.

      If a game was not finished, and/or a winner was not determined, we had to judicate games.  And back then, we came up with rules based on who might be ahead and who most likely would win at the time in which the game needed to end.  Mind you, this was all with the old Classic 2nd Ed. game.  What then happened was players didn’t agree with the judges decisions and I had enough of judicating.  So, I went to Larry and we came up with the VC bonuses system we currently have.  So, I am curious why Q doesn’t complain to Larry about that one, instead of bashing only me over it…?

      Ok, beside the point.  But what I am trying to say is that for most if not all events that we are running now, I can’t ask people to bring clocks.  And what happens if someone shows up and doesn’t have one but still wants to play?  Do I tell him sorry, you can’t because you don’t have a clock.  And then what happens if we don’t have enough clocks for everyone.  Is, Q going to supply us with the short fall…

      Then there is the issue of, if we used the clocks, it is not part of the game, and sure enough some players will be versed at playing with clocks while others, may never have played with them, and would spend more time trying to figure out how to use them during game play, they would end up wasting the time the clocks were suppose to save.

      With that being said, I don’t believe that just because we don’t play with chess clocks at this time, doesn’t mean that we have not considered them or that they might not work, it is just under the circumstances by which the games are played, does not fit into the equation.

      So, I could see game clocks being used for a Masters Events were players, were ahead of time told they would be used and, the event was by invitation only.

      But until Larry/WotC, starts putting clocks in the game boxes for the base tournaments, I just don’t see it happening.

      So, Q can say what he wants, but I think that is a fairly sound reason for not using them up to this point.  And logical one to boot…

      Peace,
      Gregory J. Smorey

      Axis & Allies Tournament Director/GM - GEN CON/Origins/Spring Gathering

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @smo63:

      @djensen:

      I just wanted to get the conversation started regarding face-to-face tournament rules. I would prefer to start the conversation with those who have run or played in face-to-face tournaments to set the tone, from experience about what does and does not work. I’m sure it will depend on the game version as well.

      Since it has been over 5 years since I’ve played in a tournament, I’ll refrain from comments until I’ve either playtested suggestions or have returned from GenCon 2012.

      Ding, ding, ding…I guess it is time for me to chime in.  I can’t believe someone didn’t ask where in the hell I was considering my name was mentioned probably more than anyone elses…

      OK, now, from my viewpoint and Dave, let me know if I am missing something here or I am out of line, but basically, you asked about FTF tournament rules, from experience what works and what does not…

      How can Questioneer turn this thread into Chess clock timer issue. We don’t play with Chess clocks now.  They don’t come in the games for tournaments use, so, just curious why doesn’t everyone jump on Q when he brings up something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand?

      Just my thought on the subject…

      Peace,
      Gregory J. Smorey
      Axis & Allies Tournament Director/GM - GEN CON/Origins/Spring Gathering

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

      @djensen:

      I just wanted to get the conversation started regarding face-to-face tournament rules. I would prefer to start the conversation with those who have run or played in face-to-face tournaments to set the tone, from experience about what does and does not work. I’m sure it will depend on the game version as well.

      Since it has been over 5 years since I’ve played in a tournament, I’ll refrain from comments until I’ve either playtested suggestions or have returned from GenCon 2012.

      Ding, ding, ding…I guess it is time for me to chime in.  I can’t believe someone did ask where in the hell I was.

      OK, now, for my viewpoint and Dave, let me know if I am missing something here or I am out of line, but basically, you asked about FTF tournament rules, from experience what works and what does not…

      How can Questioneer turn this thread into Chess clock timer issue. We don’t play with Chess clocks now.  They don’t come in the games for tournaments use, so, just curious why doesn’t everyone jump on Q when he brings up something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand?

      Just my thought on the subject…

      Peace,
      Gregory J. Smorey
      Axis & Allies Tournament Director/GM - GEN CON/Origins/Spring Gathering

      posted in House Rules
      smo63S
      smo63
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 4 / 7