@shadowhawk I think categorizing A&A as “as much a game of luck as a game of skill” is selling the system short, especially at the highest levels of play that you’re discussing here. It’s possible to lose because of bad dice, of course, but swingy-outcomes decrease with sample size, and so the “luck” factor in A&A decreases when:
- skill level is high and therefore battles are more often one-sided
- experience level is high and therefore odds calculations and expectations are much more accurate (this is more about ‘perceived’ luck)
- battles are larger (more rolls = less swing)
- within each game as the battles pile up
- over the course of a whole tournament where multiple games are played
Gary’s videos that @phd_angel linked above are great examples of all of these factors.
While there will always be cases of great players knocked out early in a tournament due to bad dice, this will still usually require being matched up with a similarly skilled player getting good dice, because it will require a skilled player to capitalize quickly on those advantages before the good player can adjust.
I think players with differing skill levels will be sorted out over the course of any tournament involving multiple games & rounds, especially if isn’t single elimination (like this year’s world championships at Gen Con). Requiring players to play two games (one from each side) with identical bids can be a good way to mitigate the effects of luck. In any tournament, whether it’s chess or ping pong, you’ll see a great team or two knocked out early and a mediocre team or two going father than they should on paper… but if you look at quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals you’ll almost always find highly skilled teams duking it out.
