GenCon Indy 2012

[ghr2]

I would expect the merhcandiser to pick up the customer and throw him out of the building and to get a cheer from the others.

[Asterios]

@ghr2:

I would expect the merhcandiser to pick up the customer and throw him out of the building and to get a cheer from the others.

yeah well evidently you never worked in the retail field, there is a saying the customer is always right, it doesn’t matter if he isn’t, but you have to act like he is, furthermore, have you read the discussion? also in this case the customer did not call the merchandiser an imbecile, up to the point where Garg was attacked he did not attack anyone in particular, but commented how the way the event is run, and that you might as well remove all the rules and such if your going to change it. if Greg was one of my reps and I saw this convo he would no longer be a rep.

[ghr2]

Well then, I just lost a little more hope for humanity today.  When some people get away with BS and others get the shaft.  Reminds me of that story recently where that cashier got fired for defending himself and other customers from an armed robber with his own concealed weapon.  (not exactly the same as what happened here but anyways).   Like I said, greg could ob kept his cool better and acted more profesional since apparantly in a way represents wotc/larry harris, but he does not deserve anywhere near this kind of flak that it is blown way out of proportion.

[Asterios]

@ghr2:

Well then, I just lost a little more hope for humanity today.� � When some people get away with BS and others get the shaft.� � Reminds me of that story recently where that cashier got fired for defending himself and other customers from an armed robber with his own concealed weapon.� � (not exactly the same as what happened herebut anyways).� � � Like I said, greg could ob kept hsi cool better and acted more profesional since he in a way represents wotc/larry harris, but he does not deserve anywhere near this kind of flak that it is blown way out of proportion.

you miss the point, a lot of the flak he is receiving is for what he did, he Attacked Garg first, garg attacked how the event was run, but Greg Attacked Garg personally first calling him names, and thats a straight up no no in my book since he is a rep, and his actions made both GenCon and WotC look bad, while Garg’s comments on his game play only made Garg look bad.

and don’t get me started about criminals, my belief is they try to rob me then they deserve to die, and if they brandish a weapon they will.

PS: also knowing this will age me, last time I attended Gen Con was Gen Con West for a couple of years(I was a big D&D fan).

[ghr2]

Isn’t garg an admin?

[Gargantua]

LOL no.

[Gargantua]

Wow, Scarapis and Gargantua, I am utterly flabbergasted that you continue to misunderstand the necessity of tourney rules that are not “in the rulebook,” even after the reasons have been explained logically–and lengthily, I might add.  I can only conclude that either a) you have a distinct agenda against Greg and/or FTF A&A tourneys that deviate one iota from the box rules (really???), or b) you are immature–perhaps teenagers or younger, or c) you have mental health issues.  Seriously, that’s not a personal attack, that’s genuine bafflement and concern should a) and b) both be ruled out.

Bushido… help me out here…

No one has yet to “explain” at any length, why NO’s should be excluded.  And with that, I accepted a -truce- on the part of the Gencon boys.  After all, the promotion of A&A and tourney’s is something I totally support.

But now I’m mentally ill? and immature?

[Asterios]

@ghr2:

Isn’t garg an admin?

Something tells me Djensen would rather shut the site down then to make Garg a mod or something.  

not too mention if he was a type of Admin Greg would have violated the first rule of any forum:

[Gargantua]

As for an Agenda, I don’t have one,  other than to see players play the game they want to play it.

But if you’re going to call me names, and imply that I’m stupid, immature, incapable, mentally ill, etc.

Then I might as well stick to my guns that the tournament presentation is poor, based on, as far as I can tell… no more than stubborness and personal feelings.

[ghr2]

Then explain why does it matter that some people host a tournament by different rules than what other people play by?

[Asterios]

@ghr2:

Then explain why does it matter that some people host a tournament by different rules than what other people play by?

because I’ve never played this game before (only played the MB:GMS Axis and Allies) and would be reading the rules and would like to play by the rules, not have shortcuts tossed in willy nilly to the point it confuses the game for me a “new player”.

As a “new player” I want to learn the game rules(as written by the company), not some “other persons” rules.

[ghr2]

How do you get the impression that these are random willy nilly short cuts?

[jim010]

@smo63:

@jim010:

The only thing I wonder at, is why smorey seems so hostile?

+1

jim,

Why you ask, because, I am the one taking the brunt of the criticizm for the FTF tournament play at GEN CON and Origins.Â

And outside of Questioneer, I am not aware that anyone else that is commenting negatively has ever been to an event we put on.Â

Then for comments to be made like we are incompetent and we have no idea how to play AA, gets to you.Â

And not to mention, these guys are great at pushing ones buttons. I would call them names, but then they would just accuse me of attacking them first…

I just gets real old fast…

I can understand your frustration, but you are in a different position than those making the negative comments.  As an event organizer, or a creator of a game, you will always have criticism leveled at you - deserved or not.  Some will be relevent, but most won’t be.  How YOU react to the criticism is more important than those pushing your buttons.   Your reaction sets the tone for these events, not so much the naysayers.

Just some friendly advise, that’s all.  Keep your cool.

Personally, I’m fine with having these tournament rules.  Its been that way in the past as well, as I recall.  In the end, many play with some sort of house rule anyway, like bidding (which Larry seems to hate).

I will agree, though, that the players that test these games don’t quite play the same way as the online group.  They miss too much, where as in an online game, there is more time to explore in detail all possible moves backed up with an odds calculator.  The playtesters never envisioned the turn 3 India Crush, or Sealion in the current games.  It might be worth taking some advise from the online community

[Gargantua]

How do you get the impression that these are random willy nilly short cuts?

Because they are baseless determinations.

For Example… how and when was it decided that 1942 was more balanced than 1941?  Or that NO’s took “too much time” to calculate?  I agree that these guys play the game, and are -in their opinion- doing their best.  But when questioned, no evidence other than “We just decided” has been provided.

It goes so far as to acknowledge that the rules in the -first year- of the tournament, where everything was brand new, and not yet fully understood, have basically remained entirely the same, depsite years of now developed and understood gameplay.

Baseless determinations, lead to sweeping allegations. :P

[Gargantua]

Great post Jim.

[Asterios]

@ghr2:

How do you get the impression that these are random willy nilly short cuts?

Because they are not in the rulebook or in any game company errata which makes them non-legal, do you think WotC would allow GM’s running sanctioned Magic Tournements to change the rules to fit their timeline or beliefs? no they would not, cause then they would be considered non-sanctioned tournements, just like the A&A games Greg wants to run, sanctioned goes by the games rules, non-sanctioned goes by someone elses rules.

[ghr2]

How are these different from the normal rules then?

[miamiumike]

I seriiously feel like I am talking to multiple brick walls - but I will calmly try one last time to lay this out…and sorry for causing anyone to go blind reading this…

1. In a FTF tournament, you cannot have games that go on for an undefined period of time. So, a time limit needs to be established (this, of course is NOT in the rule book, so that means it is willy nilly and is completely illegal).

2. Given that you must have a time limit and given that there are 18 VC in the game - you could, in fact, have a TIE at the end of the game time period. So - you must have a tie-breaker - which was decided to be total IPC count on the board. (this, of course is NOT in the rule book, so that means it is willy nilly and is completely illegal).

3. In the rules - since that is what everybody is barking about - it says “Assign a power or powers to each player” Hence the bid system - which allows for the game to determine sides and also has the bonus of acting as a (perceived or otherwise) balancing aspect of the game. We could assign sides by rolling dice, flipping a coin or by whoever was closest to guessing the mass of atomic element 47. The ‘rules’ do not stipulate HOW to assign teams. They must be willy nilly.

4. In the rules - since that is what everbody is barking about, it says “Research & Development. Note: This is an optional rule”. Our option - not to use it. Why? Given that tech in the past has proven to be overpowered in some cases AND the fact we wanted to make the game as accessible as possible - it was discussed and decided that Tech was out. It would have been willy nilly had we added the ‘super-bendy-thumbs’ tech, but we, at the last moment, decided against it.

5. In the rules - since that is what everbody is barking about, it says “National Objective & Bonus Income. Note: This is an optional rule”. Our option - not to use it. Why? This optional rule was added to inject more cash into the game and to give people additional ‘goals’ as they played that, over the course of a full game might give them some advantage. Since we have a limited amount of time in a FTF tournament game and since the NOs do not directly correlate to the victory conditions of the game and since we wanted to make the game as accessible as possible - it was discussed and decided that NO was out. There has, however, been a lot of discussion over the last year or two and feedback from people who actually PLAY in the FTF tournaments that NOs may be added. As much as some would like to believe - the rules used are not set in stone forever.

6. The tournament uses the ‘official’ LHTR updates. While not in the original rule book, I guess this makes them just willy (but not nilly)

7. I couldn’t find in the rules how to choose 1941 or 1942 set up, though I assume that it would usually be in agreement from the players. Since I have seen firsthand how well players ‘agree’ during tournaments, a decision had to be made for everyone - and that was the 1942 set-up. After play-testing both set-ups using the format we knew we had to use (timed games = finite rounds), the 1942 setup seemed a) more balanced and b) provided more variation in how the game might flow. While not talked about much by the players, if there were some logical arguments made, I am sure it would be a consideration to move to the 1941 setup - but I think most people who play DO like the 1942 better in the format we have.

Lastly, most ALL of the items above were also discussed with Larry - he helped to develop the format for the FTF tournaments for both Revised (1942) and AA50. Larry is a pretty good guy, so I am not sure I would label him willy NOR nilly.

So - there you have it - all of the MANY, MANY changes that were made to the game out of the box. We wanted to change the attack values of tanks and allow ships to move three sea zones a turn, but figured that might be a bit too much.

MM

[questioneer]

@miamiumike:

I seriiously feel like I am talking to multiple brick walls - but I will calmly try one last time to lay this out…and sorry for causing anyone to go blind reading this…

1. In a FTF tournament, you cannot have games that go on for an undefined period of time. So, a time limit needs to be established (this, of course is NOT in the rule book, so that means it is willy nilly and is completely illegal).

2. Given that you must have a time limit and given that there are 18 VC in the game - you could, in fact, have a TIE at the end of the game time period. So - you must have a tie-breaker - which was decided to be total IPC count on the board. (this, of course is NOT in the rule book, so that means it is willy nilly and is completely illegal).

3. In the rules - since that is what everybody is barking about - it says “Assign a power or powers to each player” Hence the bid system - which allows for the game to determine sides and also has the bonus of acting as a (perceived or otherwise) balancing aspect of the game. We could assign sides by rolling dice, flipping a coin or by whoever was closest to guessing the mass of atomic element 47. The ‘rules’ do not stipulate HOW to assign teams. They must be willy nilly.

4. In the rules - since that is what everbody is barking about, it says “Research & Development. Note: This is an optional rule”. Our option - not to use it. Why? Given that tech in the past has proven to be overpowered in some cases AND the fact we wanted to make the game as accessible as possible - it was discussed and decided that Tech was out. It would have been willy nilly had we added the ‘super-bendy-thumbs’ tech, but we, at the last moment, decided against it.

5. In the rules - since that is what everbody is barking about, it says “National Objective & Bonus Income. Note: This is an optional rule”. Our option - not to use it. Why? This optional rule was added to inject more cash into the game and to give people additional ‘goals’ as they played that, over the course of a full game might give them some advantage. Since we have a limited amount of time in a FTF tournament game and since the NOs do not directly correlate to the victory conditions of the game and since we wanted to make the game as accessible as possible - it was discussed and decided that NO was out. There has, however, been a lot of discussion over the last year or two and feedback from people who actually PLAY in the FTF tournaments that NOs may be added. As much as some would like to believe - the rules used are not set in stone forever.

6. The tournament uses the ‘official’ LHTR updates. While not in the original rule book, I guess this makes them just willy (but not nilly)

7. I couldn’t find in the rules how to choose 1941 or 1942 set up, though I assume that it would usually be in agreement from the players. Since I have seen firsthand how well players ‘agree’ during tournaments, a decision had to be made for everyone - and that was the 1942 set-up. After play-testing both set-ups using the format we knew we had to use (timed games = finite rounds), the 1942 setup seemed a) more balanced and b) provided more variation in how the game might flow. While not talked about much by the players, if there were some logical arguments made, I am sure it would be a consideration to move to the 1941 setup - but I think most people who play DO like the 1942 better in the format we have.

Lastly, most ALL of the items above were also discussed with Larry - he helped to develop the format for the FTF tournaments for both Revised (1942) and AA50. Larry is a pretty good guy, so I am not sure I would label him willy NOR nilly.

So - there you have it - all of the MANY, MANY changes that were made to the game out of the box. We wanted to change the attack values of tanks and allow ships to move three sea zones a turn, but figured that might be a bit too much.

MM

1. True a must- though I personally have vouched for more time.  No argument here though.

2. True again- must do this.  I don’t agree with the Bonus System completely- just have a problem with LA being 0.  This illiminates any West Coast threat and reduces the games arsenal of strategies.  I’ve seen serious strategies formed where there is a threat to LA.  Do you know of the z42 progression from Revised???  All bouns cities should be worth SOMETHING, thats why they are victory cities.  I would tweek this a bit.

3. Bid system is fine.  We do a version of it online here also.  Playing in Greg’s tournys and online with it, I see no difference.  I don’t see the complaint here.

4./5. Optional rules are optional rules.  From play online, in AA50 the 41 WITH NatObj is popular, open-ended strategy game and very balanced.  Proved over 100s of games.  However, the 42 w/o NatObj. is also balanced from what I have experienced.  Greg made the call to go with the latter b/c he did not want optional rules for simplicity- OK I understand that.

He also said that the 41 “turns into the 42 setup anyway”- which is NOT true.  That is a very grossly false assessment.  If that were true, then for example, Japan in the 41 would reach out into the Pacific and pick up all those islands that the 42 starts with- completely different strategy routes from what I have seen.

Regardless, b/c Greg has decided not to use optional rules which is his choice, that leave the 41 w/NOs out of the picture.  That is his right to do that.  Its a shame and I never agreed to it but it is his right to make that call- its his tourny, not ours.

6. LHTR- man you guys still got those- that’s old.  I predict that AA50 will slowly fade away as there are fewer and fewer copies available and AA41, AA42 2nd ed and G40 will be the flagship games of the tourny.  That being said, there are no NatObj in 41 and 42 so it won’t matter and in G40 Larry made the NatObj part of the regular rules (not optional- thank God!!!).  So the complaints I had with the AA50 tourny, I don’t care about anymore b/c I believe that version will slowly fade away.

7. Most people at the tournaments or your playtesting group liked 42, but online, 41 w/NatObj was king.  Again, irrelavant now that 42 2nd ed will probably take AA50s place.

8. Mike and Greg- have you considered my proposal for online qualifier and automatic bids???  BTW I have a new email so anything you sent after June 15th I didn’t receive.  PM me and I’ll give you my new one if you want.

[Gargantua]

2. True again- must do this.  I don’t agree with the Bonus System completely- just have a problem with LA being 0.  This illiminates any West Coast threat and reduces the games arsenal of strategies.  I’ve seen serious strategies formed where there is a threat to LA.  Do you know of the z42 progression from Revised???  All bouns cities should be worth SOMETHING, thats why they are victory cities.  I would tweek this a bit.

Again, this is where things get willy nilly. Why is LA worth 0? But Washington DC worth 20?

Why not have them both worth 10?

or 5 and 15 atleast?

The -tie breaker- determination system could give japan a failing grade, even if the are in control of WUS! LOL!  Over and Over again I read “We’ve listened to the players”.

Sounds like no one’s been listening to Questioneer for YEARS, and no one’s listening now.  The Brick wall’s being talked to, are on the OTHER side of the fence.