1st Annual Cellar Gaming TripleA Octathalon – Brackets and Win Posts

[Bacala]

ACGTO Great War Entek (Alliance) v Bacala (Entente)
Bacala wins

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37048.0

[DizzKneeLand33]

Great War

mike48484 [Sides: (even is Allies, odd is Central Powers)] vs EntekRolling 1d20:
(12)

[redrum]

Hey Dizz, I was wondering about the exact tournament format. Is it essentially double elimination including the final game? Just wondering if the loser’s bracket champion has to beat the winner’s bracket champion twice or just once?

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

Hey Dizz, I was wondering about the exact tournament format. Is it essentially double elimination including the final game? Just wondering if the loser’s bracket champion has to beat the winner’s bracket champion twice or just once?

In order to expedite those final rounds a bit, instead of the loser’s bracket winner having to win twice, the final is just one game; however, the sides for the final are chosen by the winner of the winner’s bracket (instead of randomly).

Does that sound fair?  We could change that otherwise, but I thought it would be better than having to possibly play two games for the final.

[redrum]

That’s fine with me. Just wanted to make sure it was clear early on to avoid any confusion later.

Also, FYI there is at least one bad connection in TAW: SZ61-SZ64 shouldn’t be connected.

[redrum]

TAW- redrum (Romans) defeats Mike48484 (Anti-Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37079

Overall, I have some concerns around balance and tournament ready this map is. I think the Roman alliance is considerably stronger to the point of probably at least a 10-20 PU bid for Anti-Romans. I also don’t particularly like the ‘barbarians’ as they add too much randomness as if they tend to focus on one alliance more than the other then it can be very unbalanced. Just some thoughts.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

Overall, I have some concerns around balance and tournament ready this map is. I think the Roman alliance is considerably stronger to the point of probably at least a 10-20 PU bid for Anti-Romans. I also don’t particularly like the ‘barbarians’ as they add too much randomness as if they tend to focus on one alliance more than the other then it can be very unbalanced. Just some thoughts.

For a few of these maps (like TAW), part of the purpose of the tournament is to test the balance of the maps.  The tournament is for fun, so if there are one or two out of balance then we together as a community can help fix that.  Of course, if it ends up that we can’t fix it, we can always change to a different map for next year – that’s all part of the fun!  :mrgreen:

[Narushima]

Great War, Narushima (central powers) loses vs redrum (allies)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37117

[Bacala]

TAW- Balladeer (Anti-Romans) defeats Bacala (Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37060.0

[mike48484]

FYI –

Havent heard from DAYMAR and Santaclause - and have sent them multiple messages to get these games started

[DizzKneeLand33]

@mike48484:

FYI –

Havent heard from DAYMAR and Santaclause - and have sent them multiple messages to get these games started

I have send them messages as well.  I hope that they respond somewhere, or else they will be withdrawn by the middle of the month.  Everyone else seems alive and kicking at least!  :)

This is my busier time of year, so I will have days (like today) where I won’t have time to post to games, but I’m almost always around to answer questions/issues – just an FYI.

[Balladeer]

Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?

This is actually a practice game and not a tournament game, but the rule question stands, as it goes for WAW and TRS as well:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37180.new;topicseen#new

[redrum]

@Balladeer - I’m 90% sure that is illegal. From the NWO rules:

• It must be shown that all Fighters can land during Combat Move phase, and that any Carriers they will be landing on CAN move there DURING Combat Move phase, with legal movements.
• The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

So any purchased carriers can’t be consider for fighter range since they don’t get exist during combat move.

I’d defer to the NWO experts though.

[Narushima]

I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@Balladeer:

Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?

The LHTR Carrier Production rules are a “variant” that we use in the tournaments, so (as you I believe correctly implied above) I think the reason that the move is not being allowed is because the engine does not yet see the possibility of a carrier being in SZ17.  I think in games like AAG40 it calculates the possibility of that carrier being there when deciding the legality of combat moves (but someone like redrum would be much more qualified to confirm that than I).  Because this is an A&A variant, I do believe that the fighters should be able to land.

Redrum, in practice do ladder NWO players play with LHTR Carrier rules or not?  I see what you are saying about the carrier not being able to move to the zone during combat, but it seems to me that the explanation is for existing carriers, not newly purchased ones.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@Narushima:

I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.

Well, so are you saying that the fighters that land on the newly purchased carrier are not able to do anything else during the turn except land on the carrier?  That doesn’t seem normal, either.  :wink:

[DizzKneeLand33]

Let me know your thoughts on this.  The LHTR rules are here:

http://cellargaming.com/gaming/Rules/A&A Revised Rules LHTR 2.0.pdf

At the bottom of page 20 it talks about Air Units and landing in an eligible space:

“Only Fighters may land in any sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own into which you will place an aircraft carrier you purchased this turn.  A landing spot must be available on the newly placed carrier.”

[redrum]

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

I think in general, most lobby NWO players don’t use LHTR rules. The NWO rules aren’t 100% clear but tend to lean towards not considering potentially bought ACs. It also tends to fit more closely with the other rules that tend to be conservative around AC landing areas such as:

• On Moving Through A Cleared Sea Zone: In Revised and LHTR rules, it is legal to make moves under the assumption that all your dice are hits and all enemy’s dice are misses, thereby allowing the assumption that the carrier could move through the zone in non-combat-move phase. However, in NWO this move is considered illegal, regardless of using Dice or LowLuck

I think in this case, the changed phase order eliminates the option of ‘will place an aircraft carrier you purchased this turn’ since you haven’t purchased yet.

FYI, seig map (NWO, WaW, TRS) rules are being discussed here and will be copied into all 3 maps: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Seig-trio-default-rules-discussion-td7590530.html

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

Of course, the only reason the purchase phase comes after the combat movement phase is a matter of convenience, iirc.  It shouldn’t affect whether a move is legal or not, right?

But, that being said, the LHTR rules still can be used, just not to validate a fighter’s move in combat.  Ice said this on the other thread:

"about manuevering planes so they can land on newly phurcased carriers: no another mumbojumbo rule that yust wont fit into the bigmaps we have. not to mention the rules already covers this:

The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

in other words when there is no carrier u surely cannot do it.

ice "

So, I will defer to ice’s interpretation and expertise on the NWO and related maps.  Since the purchase is not made until after the combat move (whereas in G40 it is, for example), the purchased carriers cannot be used to validate the legality of the combat move.  This is not to say that the fighters cannot land on the newly purchased carrier – in your example, Balladeer, if Iceland belonged to the Allies, then you could make the combat move since the fighters would have a place to land, and then during non-com still move the fighters to SZ17 to land on the newly purchased carrier (which you could not do without the LHTR box being checked, so it does still matter).

So let it be written, let it be done…  :-D

Is everyone good with that?  This will apply to WaW and TRS as well – I’m not sure why I’ve never had this come up in WaW, must just be a strange quirk…

[Balladeer]

@DizzKneeLand33:

@redrum:

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

Of course, the only reason the purchase phase comes after the combat movement phase is a matter of convenience, iirc.  It shouldn’t affect whether a move is legal or not, right?

But, that being said, the LHTR rules still can be used, just not to validate a fighter’s move in combat.  Ice said this on the other thread:

"about manuevering planes so they can land on newly phurcased carriers: no another mumbojumbo rule that yust wont fit into the bigmaps we have. not to mention the rules already covers this:

The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

in other words when there is no carrier u surely cannot do it.

ice "

So, I will defer to ice’s interpretation and expertise on the NWO and related maps.  Since the purchase is not made until after the combat move (whereas in G40 it is, for example), the purchased carriers cannot be used to validate the legality of the combat move.  This is not to say that the fighters cannot land on the newly purchased carrier – in your example, Balladeer, if Iceland belonged to the Allies, then you could make the combat move since the fighters would have a place to land, and then during non-com still move the fighters to SZ17 to land on the newly purchased carrier (which you could not do without the LHTR box being checked, so it does still matter).

So let it be written, let it be done…  :-D

Is everyone good with that?  This will apply to WaW and TRS as well – I’m not sure why I’ve never had this come up in WaW, must just be a strange quirk…

Allright, good discussion to have had and thanks for the clarification. I’m good with the ruling (would be good with any), but wanted to know before moving :)

Enjoy! :)