Looking for opponent for PBEM AA50 1942 setup, no NOs, no tech, bid for sides, use TripleA map/dice roller.
Posts made by BushidoBlitz
-
RE: Find Opponents Here!
-
RE: Spring Gathering XI, Cincinnati, April 5-6
Dave,
Great meeting you again. Didn’t get a chance to play 1914, but I did get to see your “industrial production” poker chips in action–cool stuff!Greg,
Fantastic job as always! Can’t believe another year has come and gone. The day went fast. Some great door prizes, too, by the way. Diplomacy, Ikusa, signed AA 1914, signed set of AA 1940 global, just to name a few. Thanks for making it all happen yet again.Played 3 games of 1942 (4:45 rounds, instant win if 10VC (Allies) or 9VC (Axis), otherwise most VC at end of time wins)
1. Played Axis (6 IPC to Allies ) - Allies conceded after fall of Moscow in round 5, Leningrad having fallen earlier, with US having chance to take one VC in Pacific but not two. On pace for a 7 round game.
2. Played Allies, accepting a 20 IPC bid - barely got a 5th round in, at start of which Axis held Leningrad and Allies held Shanghai; in round 5, Axis conquered Moscow while US conquered Tokyo for a narrow 7-6 VC win. However, had the Japanese distributed fighters more evenly between Manila and Tokyo, this game could easily have gone to the Axis.
3. Played Axis (6 IPC to Allies ) - Allies conceded in round 6 (11 tnk/1bmb German build in Russia/Caucasus), Moscow having fallen in round 5 (sensing a theme?); on pace for an 8 round game. Japanese fleet was able to resurrect time and again to keep the US fleet at bay.First time playing 1942 2nd edition in a tourney. Seems a bit limited in strategic options, certainly for tournament play but I’d venture to say also for out of the box victory conditions. Nearly all the Allied Atlantic fleets are demolished on G1, and every SZ surrounding Great Britain is within range of the German Baltic fleet plus at least 5 aircraft on the coast, not to mention any remaining German subs. So, KGF seems out of the question, and it’s KJF or bust. This is a one-track game that reminds me of the original AA Europe, which boiled down to a march on Moscow–everything else was a sideshow. I’m resigned to this version being the “mainstream” tourney at Greg’s events this summer, but the “side” AA50 games will be more enjoyable, I’m sure.
-
RE: AA50 - 42 CdnRanger (Allies +9) vs BushidoBlitz (Axis)
I’ve loaded the game file, but what dice roller are we supposed to use? (I’m used to TripleA, which has one built in).
I see references on the forum to DAAK, Flames of Europe or rjware.net, but not sure how to proceed. Sorry for the delays in getting started, but what do you recommend?Thanks,
BB -
RE: GEN CON 2012 Results!
I see your name and Gregs’ in the new rulebook for Pacific 1940 2nd Edition.
Carl, I wasn’t aware of that–maybe it’s a carryover from the 1st edition playtesting. In any case, I’m not fan enough of the game to want to play, but remember the original Pacific? Now that was a excellent game! Thanks for the congrats.
We only need to extend GenCon for an additional week so that we can play '42, AA50, and Global instead of having to choose :-(
Amen, brother! I would LOVE to be able to play in more than one tourney, mostly non-overlapped. One way to make the AA50 and AA42 tourneys that way would be:
AA50: all day Thursday = one qualifier, 2-rounds of Swiss pairings (like record paired with like), cut to top 8 for single elimination; Friday = quarterfinals + semifinals; Sunday = finals
AA42: all-day Sat = “Mega” tourney, single elimination; Sunday = finals
That way teams playing in the AA50 single elimination on Friday could still play in AA42 on Saturday. One issue would be if there are more than 16 teams for AA42, you would need to add an extra round on Friday evening, but even then only the AA50 semi-finalists would have to choose whether to separate to play in both tourneys or not. Another drawback would be folks would have to show up on Thursday to make the single AA50 qualifier. Some people only come on Fri-Sat, so that would cut them out.Jeff
-
RE: GEN CON 2012 Results!
Greg,
Congrats on another fantastic job at GenCon as GM of all things Axis and Allies! I could see you, Kelly and Mike working hard to keep the casual and tourney A&A scenes running smoothly.
I had an absolute blast playing 30 hours of AA50 with squirecam! Also met several new folks that way, including a law professor in town at UC that would like to play AA50 again sometime.
Thanks again for the TON of work you put into the cons. I know it’s a HUGE sacrifice of time on your part, but it definitely makes this hobby something extraordinary and helps bring together a bunch of a good guys from around the country.
Peace,
Jeff (BB) -
RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
First, I’m all for trying the chess-clock
Me, too, but I have a different preference than some on how it might be implemented.
…if we come up with a set of rules that are well-thought out and thoroughly tested.
Thorough testing is the key, so that we catch all the glitches that inevitably come up.
I don’t think I like the idea of winning or losing a game due to “timing out.” Â Talk about a real change to the OTB “feel,” that’s a big one. Â Only getting 5 rounds done in 6 hours is lamentable, but at least you play for 6 hours, and you win or lose based on the state of the board (control of VCs, IPC count). Â Winning or losing based on time seems a bit drastic, and I’m thinking I’d find it unsatisfying on either end. Â We could consider instead applying a penalty–for example, if you time out, you lose all 9-9 ties, or you have to win 11-7 on VCs or something like that.
For example, AA50 tourney game, 5:46 = 346 total minutes (+15 minutes grace if at UK or later in last round)
Try 3 stages on the chess clock:
1st stage - must complete 6 rounds in 250 minutes (~42 min rounds or 7 min/country/turn), 125 minutes per team; if a team times out, they lose all 9-9 VC ties at end of game
2nd stage – must complete the 7th round in 54 minutes, 27 minutes per team; if a team times out, they must win by 11-7 VC or better at end of game; otherwise, they lose
3rd stage – must complete the 8th round in 42 minutes, 21 minutes per team; if a team times out, they immediately lose -
RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
Yes, I think the time should still be split evenly. As Squirecam mentioned, in AA50, it’s really 3-3 on countries, as China merges easily with US. With 1942, I would try equal time first and see how it goes, especially since the game starts with Allies at an 7-6 advantage in victory cities (Honolulu is the 7th VC), and a 97-71 advantage in IPC count.
-
RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
I already addressed this and thus there is no reason to throw more fuel on the fire; let’s stay on subject.
Sorry, djensen, but have to disagree and address this before getting back on topic…
Questioneer, I suspected it was too good to be true–having a civil discussion with you about chess clocks and timing rules. And then, sure enough, your personal strafing against Greg, now broadened to include “the players at GenCon,” resurfaced en force and unprompted, quite the barrage:
@questioneer:…its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task. He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways.
…Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
Any person–particularly one like Greg who has devoted 19 summers of his life serving the A&A community as tourney organizer (TO)–would find your comments insulting and hostile. This is not the way to act like a decent human being, much less persuade others to your ideas on A&A tourney formats. A&A tourneys serve three groups: the players, WOTC, and the convention companies. You have to convince that your ideas will increase player satisfaction and turnout, which in turn will make WOTC and the con companies happier. Instead, all I hear from you is a purist vehemence about how the game SHOULD be played, and anything short of that is “lame,†“stripped down,†or “disgusting.†This from a man who has been to GenCon ONE time.
Until you recant, apologize or otherwise change your tone, I’m done listening to you.
I think the chess clock idea has merit, though, and potential application in some form of tourney. I still plan to try it out on the side at GenCon and give Greg feedback on its potential use. Combined with the input of other, less prickly, posters on this forum, I’m certain we can manage without your “help with procedures.â€
BB
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
@Scarapis:
Then don’t tell that to WotC since in their magic tournements they have them timed, and at the end of that time whoever is up wins, thats life get over it
WOTC does not treat their A&A tournaments the same way as their Magic tournaments. I used to play in Magic PTQs, so I know. Magic tourneys are multiple qualifier events throughout the year, not just at the cons, and they have cash and invitations to the Pro Tour on the line (Pro Tour winners get $40,000), so that’s a whole different level of seriousness. For A&A, at Origins and GenCon, WOTC is happy if there’s a good turnout and Greg organizes events across the variety of their product line. For their part, players have been thrilled with the fantastic prizes Greg procures within the budget WOTC gives him. I wouldn’t want there to be cash or some other heavy duty prize on the line because I think that has the potential to turn the tourneys ugly in a hurry.
@Scarapis:…in a tourney of say 6 hours if ea. player/team took 15 minutes per turn, that would still allow 12 turns per player/team, which would definately give an idea of who the clear winner is, but then you will find some fault in that hypothesis, since anything that takes away from your style of play is wrong. at least BB is willing to give a try, but your ready to doom it before it starts.
Mike’s points are valid, and he is not trying to doom anything, merely trying to maintain and increase A&A event attendance at the cons across the board. I think a timed event is worth consideration, but as I mentioned earlier, try it out in a Masters or expert level event first and see what traction it gains. We can disagree on the number of rounds–I think 5-min country turns (15 minutes per side as you say) to fit in 12 rounds in 6 hours is a bit brisk. Seven rounds (8.5-min country turns) or eight rounds (7.5-min country turns on average) seems more doable to me. Also, as I talk about in the separate FTF thread that djensen started, what happens if 6 hours expires in the middle of Germany turn 8, with both sides having used up their 180 minutes exactly? The 12-round target has not been met by either side, neither side has timed out, and the game is not at the end of a US turn. So this format is trickier to figure out than it first seems, but still worth considering–I’m not dooming it by any means.
BB
-
RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
Regarding FTF tourneys…@questioneer:
Format is a little fast- you have to play fast to get enough rounds in to feel like you’ve somewhat completed a game…still you never feel like you’ve had enough time.
I agree, when I play a 6-round game of AA50, it doesn’t feel like I’ve completed a game by OTB standards. Given the time limit, purchases and movement in the last two rounds are always skewed toward achieving last-minute land grabs for tiebreaker points, which would never happen in an OTB game. Even so, I consider those quirks part of the tourney format and enjoy the game none the less.
Playing AA is like baseball. Its really meant to be played by the number of rounds (innings) not timed quarters.
I can understand your point. Six rounds in AA50 feels like it’s the start of the midgame in chess, so you can’t predict who would ultimately win were the game to be played to OTB victory. Some players might be more satisfied with the idea of, “Hey, we have to call the game ‘early’ for Side X, but looking at the board, it was just a matter of time before they would have won anyway (gotten to 13 VC for Projection of Power, for example).” I like the current tourney format a lot but could adapt to a format that forces games to more rounds if that’s what most folks want.
Chess clocks- Came up with this idea and told Smorey awhile ago. It was rejected b/c he did not want to have players pay for their own clocks ($20-30). This made no sense b/c he has all players bring there own $40-90 games, so what’s $20 more dollars???
I don’t think money is the issue. The issue is laying the chess clock requirement on folks without the grass-roots demand for it by the players. A survey or written feedback at GenCon might help back this up or not. Many, I would even say most, of the A&A folks that show up at the cons are there mainly to have a good time with friends, some of whom they only see once or twice a year at these events. They could care less whether the tourney is timed by chess clock or not.
Chess clock idea is simple…Players play until one side has a VC win or they reach a certain IPC threshold on their turn (usually established for the Axis). If they run out of time that person loses “on time”. The wins would be immediate when accomplished though (VC win or IPC win) not at the end of a complete round.
Not so simple, in my opinion. You still need alternate victory conditions should the round time expire with neither side achieving the “checkmate” instant win (VC or IPC). Also, some kind of round setpoint would be needed with chess clocks; otherwise, one side could win just by playing faster. They just need enough skill to prevent the other side from getting an immediate win (VC or IPC) while playing fast, and make the other side time out. Not a very satisfying way to win, or lose. A round setpoint needs to be reasonably achievable (I would argue for 7 or 8 rounds for a 360-minute game), otherwise you’ll have situations where, by the rules players must play 10 rounds in 360 minutes, for example, but both sides use their 180 minutes exactly and only finish 7 rounds, or they’re on Germany’s 8th turn and time is called.
BB
-
RE: Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
@Imperious:
A Poker timer for $3 solves this problem. Don’t need chess clocks…Poker timer can show accumulated time and each player can have their own for this price.
Like the low cost–$3 is accessible to everyone. On the other hand, there will be situations where someone forgets to hit Start or Stop at the right time, and a disagreement over time follows, requiring adjudication. A single game (chess) clock avoids those messes–if someone forgets to hit the button it only hurts them, as its their side’s time that will continue to count down until they remember.
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
As far as the clock procedures would go, I think it would need some playtesting first
Just bought a chess clock. I’ll see if I can get a timed pick-up game or two in at GenCon, see how it plays and get back to you…
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
@Scarapis:
BB you do realise your people skills went down 3 points?
Seriously, though, my posts have been mostly neutral discussions of the history of current AA50 tourney rules, and a discussion of where they might go in the future (chess clocks, etc.)
@Scarapis:
as to timeing changing the rules, don’t think WotC won’t be thinking about doing it
I think you overestimate WOTC’s interest in A&A tournament format. The A&A tourneys at the cons are just an advertising expense to them. It’s conceivable that someone in their marketing department would feel strongly that new timing rules will increase con tourney attendance and therefore sell more games, but, based on what I hear, they’re not that involved. Timing rule changes will come from the players and tourney organizers, not from WOTC.
@Scarapis:
speaking of which, every single one of your posts has been to post only negative comments all of them, especially about members of the board here, that while I don’t know them i’m more prone to side with them because of the attitudes coming from your side of the argument.
Positively, I support player input into tourney format, even if that means changing the current format (e.g., NO, set # of rounds, different victory conditions, etc.), and I think that some form of timed format, such as chess clocks, is worth trying out. Both ideas have been brought up by members of this forum. I’ve pointed out disadvantages of those ideas as well, but that’s the point of a good discussion. I’ve certainly been far less negative of those ideas than certain forum members have slammed into Greg’s current tourney format.
In any case, where members have been arrogant or uncivil, I’ve called them out on it, because it gets in the way of good discussion.
BB
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
@Scarapis:
every single one of your posts has been to post only negative comments all of them
you’re wrong :-D
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
A) Regarding AA50 game quality:
For DizzKneeLand33 and others, the logic of their preference for AA50 tourney format seems to be:
*** Use chess clocks –> Minimum 12-round games --> Games are closer to out-of-the-box (OTB) victory condition (VC) when time runs out --> BETTER GAMES ***I disagree with this logic.
1. Even 12-round games will not achieve OTB VC–Dizz mentioned ongoing games of 17, 20 and 23 rounds–so an event will still need a tourney VC, such as Most Victory Cities or Most Territory IPCs (tiebreaker) that Greg uses.
2. Since tourney VC is needed no matter the number of rounds, I’m skeptical that most players will find longer games (# rounds) inherently better. For example, to me an Allied 10-8 Victory City tourney win is just that–a win–whether after 12 rounds or 6 rounds.Perhaps the argument is, if a tourney guarantees 12-round games, more folks from this forum will show up. Ok, that would be good, but again, I’m skeptical. Folks here, I presume, are used to long games, yes, but games in which you can take a good amount of time to take each turn, with the full use of battle calculators, etc. Would they really leap into the equivalent of a “speed chess” tourney, with 5-minute turns, just because it was guaranteed to last 12 rounds? I doubt it.
B) Regarding chess clocks:
1. Worth considering - I’d probably suggest their trial in a Masters/expert level tournament first, so that mainstream tourneys stay accessible to newcomers.
2. You are in fact modifying the game - rulebook has no timing rules, so you would be “making them up”–anathema to some on this forum.
3. It seems to me that to use chess clocks, you’d have to set the number of rounds in the tourney. In chess, for example, it is commonly 40 MOVES in 2 hours. In AA50, it might be 12 ROUNDS in 6 hours. Each side starts with 180 minutes (half the time), and if either side runs out of time before 12 rounds are complete, they lose. Realize that setting the number of rounds is changing the OTB rules, no more or less than Greg’s current AA50 format of setting no time limit on turns, no minimum number of rounds, and game time limit to 6 hours.
4. If you have to set the number of rounds, I think 12 is too many. You’d be talking about 5-minute turns on average, including all dice rolling for battles–sure, Italy is OK with that, but others, not so much–which is insanely fast. Might be good for a “Blitz AA50” tourney, but not for the mainstream one. I would suggest 7 rounds (8.5-min turns), or 8 rounds (7.5-min turns) at the most.
5. I don’t think there should be a set limit on each turn. I think, just like in chess, players should be free to spend less time on earlier moves–standard opening sequences if you will–and more time crunching numbers for major battles at the end.
6. I think the main advantage of a clock would be ensuring that each side gets the same amount of time to plan and act. The disadvantage is that you have to set the number of rounds, which is undesirable to some who prefer the game to be more “open” in that length.
7. If you’re going to go this route, it has to be with chess clocks. People using a stopwatch or cell phone or some device that is easily disrupted (reset by mistake, etc.) is a recipe for disaster.
8. Chess clocks are a non-trivial investment, and should not be sprung on Greg.Like I say, I think chess clocks (divide time in half, set number of rounds to achieve) could be deployed at a Masters or some other expert level event. It would lend to the gravitas of the tourney and would be a small-scale test to see how they go over. It may be that players in other tourneys notice and say, “why don’t we use those, too?”
C) Regarding good discussion:
There are ways to make the following points that wouldn’t make the posters come across as immature or disrespectful:
questioneer - “Suggested the chess clock idea to Smorey ages ago…again he wouldn’t listen to reason.”
DizzKneeLand33 - “So, in essence, you are a gaming god then…LMFAO. Italy owns Russia, Germany owns Arch, Japan owns Urals. And yet… it’s still an AWESOME game. Glad souL and I didn’t play our game at GenCon…”
Imperious Leader - “All these ‘Gen Con legends’ should play at AA.org and prove their worth. Then we will know the truth about skills.”
Not to mention the juvenile gloating above of Gargantua and questioneer.I’m grateful that djensen, ghr2, and jim010 are on the forum to make their points with civility.
BB
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
Oh for sure.
If you guys want to play golf with a soccer ball, that’s none of my business. You’re tournament, and I shouldn’t knock it until I try it. :P
And the troll bait dump continues…
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
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.
BB
-
RE: GenCon Indy 2012
Attacks don’t help the discussion, nor do they help improve the gaming experience of Axis and Allies fans, whether online or face-to-face (FTF).
Full disclosure: I’m a friend of Greg (Smorey) and (Matilda) Mike, and I’ve been a regular attendee of Greg’s FTF Axis & Allies tourneys at Origins and GenCon since 2003. A long time ago I played by e-mail (PBEM) on the TripleA War Ladder, but now my only “online” A&A play is limited to PBEM using TripleA software to practice for the FTF Anniversary Edition (AA50) tourney at the two cons.
Greg’s AA50 Tourney Rules - OVERVIEW
- To address Scarapis’ question, these rules are not arbitrary, nor are they thrown in “for fun.”
- As Mike pointed out, the AA50 rulebook states, regarding both Phase 1: Research & Development (R&D) and National Objectives (NO), “Note: This is an optional rule–players should decide whether or not this phase [rule] will be included in their game.”
- So, strictly speaking, playing by the “rules, concept, or intention of the game” (quoting Gargantua) would require the two teams playing each game to decide on whether R&D and/or NO will be used. Some would agree “Yes” to one or both, some “No” to one or both, and others would disagree. In the latter case, in a tournament format, who decides–roll a die? This is unacceptable, or a tournament organizer would allow the very arbitrariness that Gargantua, Scarapis and others seem so stridently to oppose.
- Therefore it should be clear that a tournament organizer must decide which, if any, of the two optional AA50 rules will be used in ALL games of his event. Before I talk about R&D and NO, though, a bit about the other rules Greg has for his events.
Greg’s AA50 Tourney Rules - BID, TIME LIMITS, VICTORY CONDITIONS
- Bidding: simply put, two teams show up for a game, and there has to be a fair way of determining who plays which side. Rolling a die would be OK if the game were perfectly balanced, but it’s not. Bidding allows a team to pick the side they want to play. You may prefer bidding up or bidding down, but Greg’s way has worked for 19 years, so I see no need to change it.
- Time limits: unless you want to limit a convention tourney to 1 game a day, you need time limits. Greg’s limit of 5 hrs 45 min (+15 min as needed to complete a round [end of U.S. turn]) seems to me an excellent balance between allowing enough time for the game to reach some level of authentic development, while still allowing him enough time to fit in two rounds per day (and still get a bit of sleep each night!).
- Victory Conditions: default AA50 victory condition is “Surrender With Honor,” that is, one side controls 15 Victory Cities (VC) at the end of the U.S. player’s turn. In a 6-hour game this will hardly ever happen. So then, how do you determine a winner? There must be rules, and just because they are not in the rulebook or on WOTC’s website does not make them arbitrary. Currently, victory goes to the side controlling the most VC at the end of the time limit (i.e., at completion of a U.S. turn). Game starts 10-8 VC in the Allies favor, so Axis must do some legwork. In event of a 9-9 VC tie, the tiebreaker is most IPC points of controlled territories. This seems eminently logical to me. Game starts 93-78 in Allies favor, IPC-wise (Chinese territories not included, since they’re not part of Allied income). So, to win, Axis must net pick up a VC AND some IPC’s worth of territories. These conditions make sense to me and are black-and-white, so no need for adjudication, which is key to avoiding messy hassles.
Greg’s AA50 Tourney Rules - R&D and NO
- Gargantua, you are misperceiving Mike’s comments. They are most certainly NOT “the first stone…thrown from your court.”
- Some context: it’s spring 2009, AA50 just came out the previous winter, and Greg is charged with running an AA50 tourney at Origins and GenCon that year. So he had some homework: to determine what would be victory conditions and time limits and whether to use R&D and/or NO or not. Remember, those last two were OPTIONAL rules, the game had just come out, and he has to pick a uniform tourney format that has the best shot at being balanced and enjoyable.
- So Greg consulted with his fellow A&A fans, including Mike and me. R&D was a no-brainer: we’d already experienced the lopsided games that earlier versions of weapons technology create in previous versions of A&A, so we quickly ruled that out. Tourney players accept that there’s luck in the game, but they also bank on the idea that, over time and games, luck evens out, and the skill of the players, more often than not, will determine the winner. R&D throws that out the window, potentially allowing many more games to be won by less skilled players merely because they got a lucky R&D roll.
- As for NO, our decision not to use them had nothing to do with thinking ANY A&A players were incompetent or couldn’t think or strategize. Some more context: the longest tourney rounds Greg had had up to then were 3hr 45min for the Mega (Revised) tourney or 4hr 45min for that same format but in a Masters Invitational tourney. AA50 comes out with a 6th country, bigger board, more spaces, more units, more stuff to think about. We’re playtesting about 1-hour rounds. 3:45 is nowhere near enough time, and even 4:45 was thought to maybe only allow 4 rounds of play in a lot of games, especially with it being new to everyone. We felt strongly that a good game should be at least 6 rounds, and 5:45 was the time limit, but even then, we knew that newer and slower players might only get 5 rounds in. Bottom line, we perceived the effort to incorporate NO into tourney play to involve significantly more than 3 minutes over the entire game. We figured an extra 5-10 minutes PER ROUND that NO would cause. Realize that the game had just come out; some people would be playing for the first time that summer. People would not have NO memorized, so at end of each turn, not only the active player is checking for all 3 NO for his country, but the opposing player is also asking to see the card, and double-check him. Moreover, add in extra time each turn for a player to read his NO to make sure that his combat movement, etc., is in line to achieve one or more of them, etc. No, we didn’t think people were dumb! We thought people would be unfamiliar enough with the freshly published game that NO would cause games to be one round less in length, i.e. only 4 rounds in some cases. Context: per Greg’s end-of-time rules, in AA50 you cannot start a new round with less than 45 minutes left on the clock. This helps avoid situations where people are in the middle of a round, even after 15 minutes of extra time, and the game has to be called when it’s not the end of a U.S. turn.
Examples[given total time allowed = 345 min, and can’t start a new round with 301 minutes or more played]:
a) newbie/slow play = 70 min rounds; 4 rounds = 280 min, so they can get to 5 rounds
b) newbie/slow play+NO = 77.5 min rounds, 4 rounds = 310 min, so they CANNOT play 5
c) regular play = 60 min rounds; 5 rounds = 300 min, so they can get to 6 rounds
d) regular play+NO = 67.5 min rounds; 5 rounds = 330 min, cannot get to 6 roundsSo I think Greg made the right call. Now, it’s 3 years later, many people are very familiar with the game, and some games are getting to 7 rounds, including last year’s GenCon finals. So, could NO be added in now and still allow games to get to 6 rounds? Yes, probably. But now it’s a whole different question: do you want to change the tourney format that’s been in play now for the 4th year straight? Influence on that decision has to come from feedback from players who play in the tourney. On the one hand, maybe it adds some additional excitement, strategy and “newness” to the game. On the other hand, now 4 years of playtesting and moving up the “learning curve” might take some backward steps until this new balance (with NO) is understood and melded into one’s strategy.
In any case, Gargantua, whatever views you might hold, and strongly at that, there is a way to communicate them that is not belligerent, belittling and arrogant. Here are examples of phrases you used that I perceived to have one or more of those traits:
- “If you’re not competent enough to calculate NO’s…then you SHOULDN’T be playing Axis and Allies.”
- “…is a far more effective means of running the tournament…than perverting and changing the rules of the game on a whim.”
- “For the record, you have NEVER HELD an Axis and Allies Anniversary tournament, because you’re not even playing by the rules, concept, or intention of the game.”
- “The compelling reason to change your tournament format and play the game properly, is just that, to play it properly.”
- “The question that should be asked…it’s 'why did people feel compelled to strike sections of the rules, because they were too lazy or inadequate to understand them.” Hey, just my opinion, but this sounds like the kind of personal attack you were crying foul about.
- “Kudos to you for hosting…a large Axis and Allies Tournament…but don’t half-a$$ it.”
If you continue to use this language to make your points, then in my opinion, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. And if this is the attitude you’d bring with you to GenCon or any other con, then I’d thank you to stay home and play your games online.
BushidoBlitz