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.

But, again, for an invitational tournament, anything goes for being prepared in advance. With that said; there needs to be the layman’s tournament rules and the master’s tournament rules. We can discuss both; maybe a new thread for the master’s rules?

[smo63]

@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…

[questioneer]

Greg,

All barking aside, I remember we had a long conversation about chess clocks and why you would not implement them.  Its coming back to me now and I understand why you don’t.  That’s fine.  I respect that.  They are good reasons.  Chess clocks CAN work in AA tournaments but I believe that it would be a hard sell to the many players there who have played the same way for a while now.  So no chess clocks- disappointing but I understand.

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.

DJensen,

I agree with your points.  However, $10 says you forget to hit your clock.  If you wanna playtest it, you gotta have both sides do it with a real clock.  I will probably test this with the new 42 game and G40 game FTF near the end of August when I got some time with some gamers then.  I report back.  Should be interesting.  I’ll play 42 with a G-180 time control and G40 with a G-360 time control.

[smo63]

@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…

[smo63]

@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…

[questioneer]

@smo63:

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.Â

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.Â

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.Â

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…

Makes sense…I understand.  I’m just more of a concrete type of person.  As in chess, the application of the clock eliminates all grey areas.  Those are parameters I can live with.  Like I said before, as in chess, playing with the clock would be a big adjustment for players to get used to and djensen is right, you would lose players before gaining them back again later.

[smo63]

@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.

[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)???

[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???

[djensen]

Hey, we finally have a good discourse on the subject here.  :-)

[squirecam]

@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???

I was there on the old AH forums when LHTR came out and at that time I said the same thing. I said either make Hawaii the 9th VC instead of Hawaii or make LA worth 10. Larry thought it wouldnt matter since LA would never be taken. I actually took LA yet lost that tourney game BTW…

But the issue with Larry is…hes just not good at his own game. He admits this.

In any event, Hawaii is now a VC in revised 2nd ed, and there are 12 total, 7 allied and 5 axis. You dont need bonus points any more. If the axis gets 7 VC at the end of time, they win. If its 6-6, then tally up IPC. If the allies have 7, they win. [same rules as AA50]

Sure, you can win with just the russian cities, but its going to be easier if Japan gets India or now potentially Hawaii. (poor Australia is left out…)

I never played a full 42 game, partially because AA50 was so much better and partially because 42 was a scam (IMHO) in that it was just revised with new rules, but a cheap knockoff with a small board and crappy pieces.

The second ed seems to have fixed things…so I might give it a try. And DJ I’m happy to test a clock with you at Gencon in a 42 or 50 game.

And yes, LHTR revised VC did impact a KJF. Its not why I started playing that way, but it sure was effective. You were almost sure to get a Japanese VC, if not 2, and the Borneo + DEI IPC easily offset losses in Africa.

[squirecam]

@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)???

There is no masters anymore because there was disagreement as to what it should be. The AA50 game “fits” the masters better (IMHO) but its also no longer commercially available. (Yes you can print your own map or use IL’s but many dont know about that).

[squirecam]

@djensen:

Hey, we finally have a good discourse on the subject here.  :-)

Shhh dont ruin it. :)

[DizzKneeLand33]

I have no clue what I’m talking about, but when I envision a “Masters” tournament, I would envision players playing 3 or so different versions of A&A in double-elimination brackets with some sort of scoring system between games.

Yes, it would take a while, but it’s a “Masters” tournament.  It could be an entire week of A&A bliss…. ;)

[DizzKneeLand33]

Specifically, one double-elimination bracket per type of game, so that each version has a “champion.”

So, 3-5 brackets/games could be incorporated into such an event, and then a final scoring system (a set amount of points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) to crown an overall champion, the “Master” of A&A….

[questioneer]

@squirecam:

@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???

I was there on the old AH forums when LHTR came out and at that time I said the same thing. I said either make Hawaii the 9th VC instead of Hawaii or make LA worth 10. Larry thought it wouldnt matter since LA would never be taken. I actually took LA yet lost that tourney game BTW…

But the issue with Larry is…hes just not good at his own game. He admits this.

In any event, Hawaii is now a VC in revised 2nd ed, and there are 12 total, 7 allied and 5 axis. You dont need bonus points any more. If the axis gets 7 VC at the end of time, they win. If its 6-6, then tally up IPC. If the allies have 7, they win. [same rules as AA50]

Sure, you can win with just the russian cities, but its going to be easier if Japan gets India or now potentially Hawaii. (poor Australia is left out…)

I never played a full 42 game, partially because AA50 was so much better and partially because 42 was a scam (IMHO) in that it was just revised with new rules, but a cheap knockoff with a small board and crappy pieces.

The second ed seems to have fixed things…so I might give it a try. And DJ I’m happy to test a clock with you at Gencon in a 42 or 50 game.

And yes, LHTR revised VC did impact a KJF. Its not why I started playing that way, but it sure was effective. You were almost sure to get a Japanese VC, if not 2, and the Borneo + DEI IPC easily offset losses in Africa.

Whoa…this is getting crazy…I actually agree with you. � It would be nice to just get rid of the “bonus system” now that Hawaii is a VC. � That would help…that bonus system is outdated I think- that was for the Revised game “back in the way back”.

Yes LA CAN be taken…remember the old z42 progression strategy for Revised from Caspian Sub???  It was a viable strategy but it didn’t work with the “bonus system” making LA zero.

[Imperious Leader]

There is no masters anymore because there was disagreement as to what it should be. The AA50 game “fits” the masters better (IMHO) but its also no longer commercially available. (Yes you can print your own map or use IL’s but many dont know about that).

Please tell them at Gen Con. If you want i can get you link for map file. If it can benefit somebody it would be appreciated squirecam.

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

There is no masters anymore because there was disagreement as to what it should be. The AA50 game “fits” the masters better (IMHO) but its also no longer commercially available. (Yes you can print your own map or use IL’s but many dont know about that).

Please tell them at Gen Con. If you want i can get you link for map file. If it can benefit somebody it would be appreciated squirecam.

I will mention it.

[squirecam]

@questioneer:

@squirecam:

@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???

I was there on the old AH forums when LHTR came out and at that time I said the same thing. I said either make Hawaii the 9th VC instead of Hawaii or make LA worth 10. Larry thought it wouldnt matter since LA would never be taken. I actually took LA yet lost that tourney game BTW…

But the issue with Larry is…hes just not good at his own game. He admits this.

In any event, Hawaii is now a VC in revised 2nd ed, and there are 12 total, 7 allied and 5 axis. You dont need bonus points any more. If the axis gets 7 VC at the end of time, they win. If its 6-6, then tally up IPC. If the allies have 7, they win. [same rules as AA50]

Sure, you can win with just the russian cities, but its going to be easier if Japan gets India or now potentially Hawaii. (poor Australia is left out…)

I never played a full 42 game, partially because AA50 was so much better and partially because 42 was a scam (IMHO) in that it was just revised with new rules, but a cheap knockoff with a small board and crappy pieces.

The second ed seems to have fixed things…so I might give it a try. And DJ I’m happy to test a clock with you at Gencon in a 42 or 50 game.

And yes, LHTR revised VC did impact a KJF. Its not why I started playing that way, but it sure was effective. You were almost sure to get a Japanese VC, if not 2, and the Borneo + DEI IPC easily offset losses in Africa.

Whoa…this is getting crazy…I actually agree with you. � It would be nice to just get rid of the “bonus system” now that Hawaii is a VC. � That would help…that bonus system is outdated I think- that was for the Revised game “back in the way back”.

Yes LA CAN be taken…remember the old z42 progression strategy for Revised from Caspian Sub???  It was a viable strategy but it didn’t work with the “bonus system” making LA zero.

Actually its 7-6, so there cant be a tie. One side either wins or loses without any IPC tally.

[smo63]

@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