GenCon Indy 2012

[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.

[miamiumike]

I am not certain about your thought that AA50 will fade away - perhaps.

However - I am not sure the 1941 game will draw big crowds - if it does that is great - but it will draw only beginners. I don’t think experienced players will be drawn to it. Then, of course, in theory after a beginner plays in a 1941 tournament or two, they might be inclined to move up in complexity. If, however, we keep new people coming in (and based on the sold out attendance at ALL of the A&A for beginner events this year and last, that might happen), the 1941 should at least generate enough people for a tournament.

For global - I truly believe that we will struggle to have a lot of teams for that - as much as people like the game, I am not sure how many want to devote their entire Con to one game - which is what the commitment is.

The new 1942 I expect to be a hit - I really hope it is - and I expect good tournament sizes for that. THe old 1942 drew next to nobody last year.

As for AA50 - it has been the most popular and most played tournament that last couple of years at GenCon and I expect that not to change anytime soon. It is possible that it will fade some though as people will have other choices to go with.

MM

[miamiumike]

Gargantua,

Let’s make sure we are clear that there are two different games you are talking about. All of the original criticism was leveled against AA50 - and all of my comments were related to THAT game.

If you want to discuss 1942 (or Revised as it was called) that is a very different issue. The bonus point system for that game came directly from Larry because we were having trouble coming up with suitable victory conditions for that game to use when the game time ended. I agree that having LA be worth no points was odd - to be honest, I mentioned that myself. While I do not know for sure what the logic was, I think it had to do with the fact that LA is rarely, if even, taken in the game (at least not in games that only last 4-6 rounds)

MM

[Gargantua]

Fair comments Mike.

I’ll stick to AA50 in this thread.

[Asterios]

Actually not having played any of the above mentioned games, I would have to agree with Garg that AA50 is doomed to die, why you ask? as a new player I’m more interested in probably getting me the 1941 game then the AA50 game, why? because the AA50 game is expensive, and sorry but I don’t believe a game is worth hundreds of dollars or more, no matter how good the game is, in fact all my games I buy I set a certain price range I will pay, so don’t pick up a game till it is within my price range with S&H.

But not only that but the AA50 game does not appear to intrigue me, also you guys took out Tech? seriously Tech ?, tech is the great equalizer if people want to spend IPC’s on dice with a slight chance of getting something and no clue what you’ll get.

[questioneer]

@miamiumike:

I am not certain about your thought that AA50 will fade away - perhaps.

However - I am not sure the 1941 game will draw big crowds - if it does that is great - but it will draw only beginners. I don’t think experienced players will be drawn to it. Then, of course, in theory after a beginner plays in a 1941 tournament or two, they might be inclined to move up in complexity. If, however, we keep new people coming in (and based on the sold out attendance at ALL of the A&A for beginner events this year and last, that might happen), the 1941 should at least generate enough people for a tournament.

For global - I truly believe that we will struggle to have a lot of teams for that - as much as people like the game, I am not sure how many want to devote their entire Con to one game - which is what the commitment is.

The new 1942 I expect to be a hit - I really hope it is - and I expect good tournament sizes for that. THe old 1942 drew next to nobody last year.

As for AA50 - it has been the most popular and most played tournament that last couple of years at GenCon and I expect that not to change anytime soon. It is possible that it will fade some though as people will have other choices to go with.

MM

Yeah I think you’re right.  42 should be a hit.  From what I’ve seen the improvements are very nice.  41 will probably be popular for a couple of years- maybe more- who knows this may be a game for the longrun also- it does have potential.  G40- yeah, I told Greg it may not be made for a tournament- it just too long for a Con.  I did my best format for it, it works but if people don’t wanna play a 9-12 hr game then I can’t blame them.

Well have fun at Indy.  If things work out, maybe I come next year- its been a while.

[miamiumike]

Well - hot-blooded debates aside - we would love to have you and anyone else from the online world there :)

[Gargantua]

We would love to attend. :P

But there is STILL the contentious issue of playing a decent version properly and with options… lol…

[ghr2]

Do people have to sign up on the day of for the tournaments or is there a pre sign up thing?

[squirecam]

@djensen:

I’ll be at GenCon Indy all four days this year. I’ll do my best to cover all the Axis & Allies action whilst playing the game.

Who else is going? Although I like to play solo, I’m thinking it might be a good idea to put together a team. If somehow I make it past the first round of AA50, the elimination round is the same day as the AA42 tournament.

If you plan on playing in the tournament, it is a good idea to have a partner. The games last 6 hrs, so you’d be sitting by yourself without anyone to get you food or a break, not to mention the strategy advice/help of two vs one. And certainly playing 2 (12 hrs) gets harder w/o a partner.

So I hope to see you there.

The rest of this thread is filled with troll bait.

[squirecam]

@questioneer:

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.
� �

Larry was the one who made LA worth 0. I remember telling him that you should just have had hawaii worth VP instead of 20 for Washington and 0 for LA and that would have solved some issues, but no go.

As to AA50, Global will never overtake it for FTF tournaments as its is. Its just TOO LONG to play tournament wise, and few are willing to play 10-12 hr games. Now, if you took Global and made a workable 1942 setup, then that might be playable in 6 hrs.

I also dont see AA42 2nd ed being the “main” game. Why play that when you could play the much better AA50??