Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

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)???

@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???

@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.

@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).

@djensen:

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

Shhh dont ruin it. :)

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…. ;)

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….

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order.  And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused.  When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry?  I believe I said,  “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move.  An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best.  If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over.  If you try and fail, Japans game is over!  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it.

Now, that is in FTF games.  Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

@smo63:

@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???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order.  And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused.  When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry?  I believe I said,  “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move.  An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best.  If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over.  If you try and fail, Japans game is over!  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it. Â

Now, that is in FTF games.  Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

I dont agree. If USA is going KGF, there was nothing in revised preventing an attempt by Japan to take LA. Except making LA worthless to take compared to India…

Making LA worth 0 was a bad move. In any case, the system itself is no longer necessary…

@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…. ;)

There just isnt enough time for that, not to mention people play other games. Greg does have a trophy for someone who plays different games as you suggest, but that isnt typical of everyone.

Completely agree with Squirecam here on both counts.  Bad for LA to be zero- totally disagree with your premise on this Greg.  That being said, I don’t think the bonus system is needed anymore anyway- it was for Revised and that version is long gone.

However, I have yet to receive the new 42 game and I will have to play it a few times to know for sure.  Like the preview show, it looks like a pretty different game from 1st ed and AA50 in a lot of ways.

@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.Â

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…

The end time rules came about specifically because of complaints of stalling. And truly they do work well. You know far ahead of time what the ruling is going to be, and know which is the “last” round. Even if 30 minutes are left there is no way to “rush” through that round.

I also think the better players play a more “open” game. In other words, they have a strategy that gives them a chance of winning in round 4-8. They dont need round “7” for instance to make their strategy work. And you can tell by pacing where you might end up and buy/plan accordingly.

Or just wing it…;)

@squirecam:

@smo63:

@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???

Ok, I will take this one in reverse order. � And maybe this is why I don’t frequent the forums as much as I should but, this is where I am confused. � When did I ever tell you to complain to Larry? � I believe I said, � “Hey, you can do whatever you want…But no, you shouldn’t be going to Larry for changes in the system.”

Ok, now moving on to the more important question of the Bonus for West US.

To be honest, going after Western US is such a whimsical task at best and in most cases, a desperation move. � An experienced player should never let Japan survive an attempt on the West unless they were on Carl Spacklers “hybrid, cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.” The amazing stuff about that stuff is, “that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.”

Giving it a bonus would only encourage erratic play at best. � If someone wants to try it, go for it, but we never believed it warranted a bonus based on the fact that if you take it, more power to you and the game should be close to over. � If you try and fail, Japans game is over!�  Again, the only real way to conceivably take the west is for someone to be out of their mind and completely miss it. �

Now, that is in FTF games. � Online might be a whole completely different matter?

That is why the West does not have a bonus…

I dont agree. If USA is going KGF, there was nothing in revised preventing an attempt by Japan to take LA. Except making LA worthless to take compared to India…

Making LA worth 0 was a bad move. In any case, the system itself is no longer necessary…

OK, squirecam, why was it a bad move?  And why is it no longer necessary?

@questioneer:

Completely agree with Squirecam here on both counts.  Bad for LA to be zero- totally disagree with your premise on this Greg.  That being said, I don’t think the bonus system is needed anymore anyway- it was for Revised and that version is long gone.

However, I have yet to receive the new 42 game and I will have to play it a few times to know for sure.  Like the preview show, it looks like a pretty different game from 1st ed and AA50 in a lot of ways.

I guess I am wanting to know your thoughts on why it is no longer needed when some haven’t even played the game?

Is it just to disagree with anything that comes from my systems?  The tone of your e-mail sure makes it sound that way…?