Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

Guys,

Also, soon as I get Larry’s blessing (which I don’t think will be a problem) I believe I have come to the decision on 1942 2nd Ed. Tournament for this year at GEN CON:

Victory Conditions:

1. If your side controls 3 or more total Victory Cities than it started with (9 for the Axis & 10 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the US turn) you win the war.

2. If neither side has obtained the 3+ VC’s within the time frame allotted, the side with the most VC (Vicotry Cities wins)  Since there are 13 VC, there can not be a tie. So take this into consideration when bidding.

Also, because I can, I have bummed up the event rounds to 4:45 hours.

Sweat and simple.  I will probably make this official sometime later on today…

Peace,
Greg

@smo63:

@questioneer:

Wow…I feel like we are all sitting down, holding hands and singing ku-ba-ya. � Very surreal indeed. :?

Here’s another simple format if you didn’t want North and West qualifiers:

3 from 42 finalists from GenCon 2012 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)
2 from 42 finalists from AA.org - begin online March 2013 (same format- up to 7 or 8 rounds)
3 from 42 finalists from Origins 2013 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)

I would bump the Masters and Regular tourny for 42 game up to 6hrs- that way you are guaranteed 6-9 rounds of solid play. � The difference between 5 and 6 hrs is nil IMHO.

The Masters Tourney Hands down will be 5:45 hour rounds…as it has been in the past. � Most likely set up as a 3 rounds round robin, then the top 4 teams play in SE play to determine the champ.

There will be 2 divisions. � 4 teams each and you play each team in your division once. � The top two come out to play in the SE bracket. � I would seed all 8 teams based on how they got iinvited to determine who plays were?

That is why everyone will have to play under the same conditions to qualify out side of having both AA50 and 1942 2ndEd filter in…

As for the game, the debate will start. � But yes, I might be leaning towards 1942 and not becasue it is a better game, but that is what WotC wants…

1. Yes 42 2nd ed. for sure for Masters, Masters format is good with 8 teams

2. Regular play 5hr and Masters 6hr- that’s doable

3. Alright here is my debate.  Having 2 qualifiers from AA.org playing on TripleA.  5hrs essentially = 5-7 rounds.  6hrs. = 6-8 rounds.  So the time clock issue is solved.  So we play by your format and stop after a certain round - like 7 for instance.  Of course once they get to the Masters they would be on your time format. Â

Many people would sign up here to play so the online qualifier would be highly competetive (similar to Garg’s tourny here).  The 2 finalist could go to the GenCon Masters.  You would definitely get 2 teams that were be very good.  So as far as the quality of the teams, that is solved.

Dominion did this this year and it worked fine.  People could go to a regional qualifier and/or participate in the one online qualifier- sanctioned by RGG on dominionstrategy.com.  It was highly competitive.  The US Finals were in Chicago where the finals from all the FTF qualifiers and the online qualifier played.  There is no reason AA shouldn’t do this if other games can.

Yes the online format was slightly different, but they respected the play of the online gamers enough to give them a couple qualifying bids.  All arguments aside, you have to respect the play of the many very good players here.  I think this is finally an opprotunity to build a real bridge here.  Give us 2 qualifying bids to the Masters at GenCon and we will have made ammends.  I can run the tournament, we play by your rules (minus the time- we would just stop play at round 7).  I won’t even play in the tourny.  What do you think???

One thing to keep in mind too would be to keep track of 3rd and 4th place finishers in all these feeder tournaments. The Masters list will need alternates - IIRC, many years at least one of the teams could not make it to GenCon and an alternate team was added.

Also, Greg will need to document the rules regarding a situation where one person on a team can make it and the other cannot. IIRC here too, that was allowed - the one member of the team could find a replacement partner. Only if BOTH team members could not come, than an alternate team was slotted.

Is that correct Greg?

MM

Well, unless 42 2nd ed has a substantial turnout, its all moot. You only need a masters is there is a full “mega”.

We will see how many like this edition enough to play it.

@questioneer:

@smo63:

@questioneer:

Wow…I feel like we are all sitting down, holding hands and singing ku-ba-ya. � Very surreal indeed. :?

Here’s another simple format if you didn’t want North and West qualifiers:

3 from 42 finalists from GenCon 2012 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)
2 from 42 finalists from AA.org - begin online March 2013 (same format- up to 7 or 8 rounds)
3 from 42 finalists from Origins 2013 (losers from semis play for 3rd place bid)

I would bump the Masters and Regular tourny for 42 game up to 6hrs- that way you are guaranteed 6-9 rounds of solid play. � The difference between 5 and 6 hrs is nil IMHO.

The Masters Tourney Hands down will be 5:45 hour rounds…as it has been in the past. � Most likely set up as a 3 rounds round robin, then the top 4 teams play in SE play to determine the champ.

There will be 2 divisions. � 4 teams each and you play each team in your division once. � The top two come out to play in the SE bracket. � I would seed all 8 teams based on how they got iinvited to determine who plays were?

That is why everyone will have to play under the same conditions to qualify out side of having both AA50 and 1942 2ndEd filter in…

As for the game, the debate will start. � But yes, I might be leaning towards 1942 and not becasue it is a better game, but that is what WotC wants…

1. Yes 42 2nd ed. for sure for Masters, Masters format is good with 8 teams

2. Regular play 5hr and Masters 6hr- that’s doable

3. Alright here is my debate. � Having 2 qualifiers from AA.org playing on TripleA. � 5hrs essentially = 5-7 rounds. � 6hrs. = 6-8 rounds. � So the time clock issue is solved. � So we play by your format and stop after a certain round - like 7 for instance. � Of course once they get to the Masters they would be on your time format. �Â

Many people would sign up here to play so the online qualifier would be highly competetive (similar to Garg’s tourny here). � The 2 finalist could go to the GenCon Masters. � You would definitely get 2 teams that were be very good. � So as far as the quality of the teams, that is solved.

Dominion did this this year and it worked fine. � People could go to a regional qualifier and/or participate in the one online qualifier- sanctioned by RGG on dominionstrategy.com. � It was highly competitive. � The US Finals were in Chicago where the finals from all the FTF qualifiers and the online qualifier played. � There is no reason AA shouldn’t do this if other games can.

Yes the online format was slightly different, but they respected the play of the online gamers enough to give them a couple qualifying bids. � All arguments aside, you have to respect the play of the many very good players here. � I think this is finally an opprotunity to build a real bridge here. � Give us 2 qualifying bids to the Masters at GenCon and we will have made ammends. � I can run the tournament, we play by your rules (minus the time- we would just stop play at round 7). � I won’t even play in the tourny. � What do you think???

My Q to you is whether these would be “live” games….It is one thing to play “7” rounds. It is another to play 7 rounds in 6 hrs vs 7 rounds in a few weeks. There will not be time for calculators or lots of time to review moves at Gencon. Just something to keep in mind.

SCam,

Actually the games could be live,

If I set a dates for each round/sections then I could clock by posts here on the forums.

So like the Dominion tournies we could set the start time for example at 6pm on a Saturday for the 1st round, 6pm next Saturday for the 2nd round etc.  People would play on the forum using TripleA PBF b/c its fast and play…so actually yes we could do these “live”.

But hey if we are playing your format and catering to FTF standards then we want 2 qualifying bids for the Masters.

There would be no need for other FTF out in the North, South, West etc.  if there is Origins, GenCon and AA.org.  AA.org tourny would make it easy for others around the country to play in a qualifier and win a seat at GenCon Masters.

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.  We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw.  In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.  This should be no different.  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?Â

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.  This should be no different.  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

FWIW = for what its worth

As for the games you shouldnt mix. You wouldnt let the winner of a bulge or d-day tourney into the masters, would you?

Sure the winner of AA50 is just as good…but its a different game. Whatever the masters game is, it should be uniform to qualify.

Agree with Squirecam again…

2013

3 bids to the 2012 GenCon finalist for 42
3 bids to the 2013 Origins finalist for 42
2 bids to the 2013 AA.org finalist for 42

2014

2 bid for the previous year’s 42 finalist at GenCon
1 bid from Origins winner for 42
1 bid from AA.org winner for 42

@squirecam:

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Then again, like you said we may be getting ahead of ourselves here.� � We haven’t played the new game yet or know if it will bring in a good draw. In either case, I am against AA50 winners getting an automatic bid to a Masters that has a completely different game- assuming that its 42 2nd ed.

FWIW I agree with this.

Squirecam,

Excuse my limit of texting vocabulary but what is FWIW?�

As for the Masters and AA50 if the game ends up being 1942 2nd ed.�  I don’t see a problem with it in the first year.�  We did that the first time we did the Masters wit the old game.�  And you have to admit, if you win a AA50 tournament, you are good enough to get into the Masters…wouldn’t you think so?

So, we need to see what the numbers are like and go from there.

Again, the main reason for the Masters was to pick out the top players and give others a chance to win at another event.�  This should be no different.�  With QT’s it would get us to hopefully have more show at the CON.

As for MM, he is completely spot on regarding alternates.�  Normally we needed 2 if not 3.�  Some years we needed them, while others, everyone showed…

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.�  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

FWIW = for what its worth

As for the games you shouldnt mix. You wouldnt let the winner of a bulge or d-day tourney into the masters, would you?

Sure the winner of AA50 is just as good…but its a different game. Whatever the masters game is, it should be uniform to qualify.

Charles,

I agree here with the premise by which you are going on, but again, this being the first year back to the Masters, I believe you can make exceptions and if the games are similar enough it shouldn’t be a problem.  Your example for Bulge and D-Day in reference to choosing the game is like comparing applies and oranges.

And I agree with your line of thought that we have to first see how the 1942 event this year is even attended.  Meaning, If we have 4 teams again like last year, what good is it having the top 3 go?  And because of the situation with AA50, I don’t really see that being the game of choice for the Masters, even though, I would prefer that…

So, I don’t see a problem having the top 2 AA50 teams, top 2 1942 teams, and then go from there…

Also, if we are taking QT’s from other locales that I don’t run, it won’t really be the same either.  There will be differences…so, not sure I see the harm?

Now, you haven’t been dancing with any dragons lately now have you…three weeks.  Can’t wait…

@smo63:

As for the non-CON QT’s, yes, again, it would have to be under the same time frame and conditions.  I guess if someone wanted to cheat they could, but it would only hurt them in the long run when it came time to play FTF without all the support systems, calculators as well as the time factor…

Greg,

So, I see that you are open to an AA.org qualifier???  As far as format the best we could do is do it in 5 or 6 hours (set dates for rounds and time them) and use your format from GenCon or wait for the newest format which you said you usually do in February.

As far as Battle Calculators there is nothing we can do about that- those comes with the TripleA software and besides that people could really just use a regular calc and do the crunching on pencil/paper anyway.  But like you said, this would hurt them in the long run with the FTF Masters for the winner that makes it there.  If you are willing to go with that then we we’re good.  We would probably do the tournament sometime between March and May next year.

In the Dominion online qualifier, the program had a point/card counter (which BTW the rules state you can count the cards in the discard anyway).  Things like this aren’t a huge deal b/c everyone had access to it.  I disagree with the point you make that this is “cheating”.  Its not cheating at all if everyone has access to it.  However, it would be cheating at your FTF tourny…which reminds me of a few things I would like to share with you…

1. When I came to Gen Con a few years back I DID see players using paper and pencil with games.  If you don’t allow BattleCalculators on Phone apps then you shouldn’t allow anything.  You need to state this in all your tourny format documents.  “No materials allowed at the game tables (examples- cell phone need to be turned on vibrate and concealed, iPods, crib sheets, paper/pencils, battle calculator or any other extra materials)”  I did this for the Dominion Qualifier in Detroit and it worked fine.  Again it was OK for the online qualifier but not for FTF.  I understand the reasoning after running a qualifier now.

2. Prizes- I know you have a nice prize stash for the winners at Gencon and Origins.  However, having a prize for everyone there is huge.  For example at the Dominion qualifier, we charged $5 for the tourny.  With that cash I was able to buy prizes for everyone.  RioGrandeGames gave me free promos for everyone+ we had free raffles for the new Base Cards -$11 a piece- we got 8 of them.  Plenty of prizes went out and people left the tournament at least getting something and several others much more.  This made people very happy and I got rave reviews about the tourny online and in-person.

For AA, I would ask WOTC if they have any cheap giveaways and for all the players that come- free raffle them off.  For example I would ask them for things like the old IC pieces or IPC money maybe.  For an event like yours they should be putting out some things for everyone coming.  Personally if it was me I would get the cheap extra AA pieces and money at HistoricalBoardGaming.com.  It pays to have a lot of cheap, mass quantity items to give away by the dozens.  Its nice to have the big prizes (trophies, games) for the winners but that can get expensive I’m sure unless WOTC is putting out the $$$$ for that.  Maybe you already do this- just wanted to share some thoughts on what worked with us on the Dominion side of things.

3. AA50 qualifiers for the first year only- meh…whatever- I guess that’s OK, though I’m more of a purest- 42 is a different game, I say make them earn it!!!

@questioneer:

1. When I came to Gen Con a few years back I DID see players using paper and pencil with games.  If you don’t allow BattleCalculators on Phone apps then you shouldn’t allow anything.  You need to state this in all your tourny format documents.  "No materials allowed at the game tables (examples- cell phone need to be turned on vibrate and concealed, iPods, crib sheets, paper/pencils, battle calculator or any other extra materials)"  I did this for the Dominion Qualifier in Detroit and it worked fine.  Again it was OK for the online qualifier but not for FTF.  I understand the reasoning after running a qualifier now.

Most (but not all) use paper and pen to keep track of IPC and dont use the cash. This will be true of AA42 2nd ed, as the game doesnt even come with IPC bills, but tells you to use paper and pen…

What isnt allowed are calculators or Triple A battle calculators. But if you have math skills you are allowed to use them.

So then paper and pens CAN be used.  You know that they will be used for more than just tracking IPCs right???  There is no way to regulate that efficiently so I guess Greg is OK with that.  I’ll assume the paper and pens are provided by the GM since the game doesn’t come with them right???

On one hand I understand why you don’t allow the BattleCalc on the other hand it just seems nit-picky.  Its a $2 app on a smartphone.  In fact, if I played I’d even let my opponent use it for crying out loud.

Actually its free on the website to use and nearly everyone has a smartphone now.  You could also set up a laptop or two and let people use the app if needed.  Its helpful a couple of times during the game.  Well, I don’t want to get into an argument about it…bottom line Greg and I are on polar opposites when it comes to issues like this.  He has elected not to have them so it his tourny and I have to respect that.  You can’t convince me that its “cheating” if everyone has the ability to bring/use one though.

@questioneer:

So then paper and pens CAN be used. � You know that they will be used for more than just tracking IPCs right??? � There is no way to regulate that efficiently so I guess Greg is OK with that. � I’ll assume the paper and pens are provided by the GM since the game doesn’t come with them right???

On one hand I understand why you don’t allow the BattleCalc on the other hand it just seems nit-picky. � Its a $2 app on a smartphone. � In fact, if I played I’d even let my opponent use it for crying out loud. �

Actually its free on the website to use and nearly everyone has a smartphone now. � You could also set up a laptop or two and let people use the app if needed. � Its helpful a couple of times during the game. � Well, I don’t want to get into an argument about it…bottom line Greg and I are on polar opposites when it comes to issues like this. � He has elected not to have them so it his tourny and I have to respect that. � You can’t convince me that its “cheating” if everyone has the ability to bring/use one though.

There is a difference between “you” doing the math and a program doing it and giving win% as opposed to OP and DP and avg hits. Its moot though. AA42 does not provide IPC’s but tells you to use paper/pen.

No doubt you can use it since you must have it anyways.

If you cant do OP/DP math…team with someone who can. ;)

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

So then paper and pens CAN be used. � You know that they will be used for more than just tracking IPCs right??? � There is no way to regulate that efficiently so I guess Greg is OK with that. � I’ll assume the paper and pens are provided by the GM since the game doesn’t come with them right???

On one hand I understand why you don’t allow the BattleCalc on the other hand it just seems nit-picky. � Its a $2 app on a smartphone. � In fact, if I played I’d even let my opponent use it for crying out loud. �

Actually its free on the website to use and nearly everyone has a smartphone now. � You could also set up a laptop or two and let people use the app if needed. � Its helpful a couple of times during the game. � Well, I don’t want to get into an argument about it…bottom line Greg and I are on polar opposites when it comes to issues like this. � He has elected not to have them so it his tourny and I have to respect that. � You can’t convince me that its “cheating” if everyone has the ability to bring/use one though.

There is a difference between “you” doing the math and a program doing it and giving win% as opposed to OP and DP and avg hits. Its moot though. AA42 does not provide IPC’s but tells you to use paper/pen.

No doubt you can use it since you must have it anyways.

If you cant do OP/DP math…team with someone who can. ;)

Not to get technical, but technically you can ONLY use that paper and pencil for IPC tracking, according to the rules- not for extra math.  So the question is since you can’t really regulate all that paper tracking, if one can track buys and moves and IPC and battles with that paper then why not allow the always available free AA app???

I mean if your gonna be technical and say that the “game doesn’t come with a BCalc” then how will you ensure that ALL people are using the paper and pencil for IPC tracking only- according to the rules.

I know I’m getting real nitty gritty here but do you see what I’m saying???

Paper and pen are allowed for tracking IPC and some people will do some math on them as well - that is perfectly legal.

Things not allowed are computers, mobile apps, calculators, spying (this hasn’t happened in a long time, but there used to be issues with members of a team walking around and watching and noting other games and what some other teams were doing), excessive stalling, using any dice that your opponent cannot also use. There are probably other things I am missing ATM.

Now - during a game sometimes you will have people allow some flexibility in the ‘rules’ but this is not required nor is uniform. An example of this might be that a team makes a buy - then goes to layout their combat - but before ANY dice are rolled, they want to change their purchase. Technically not allowed - but - if the other team is OK with it, I have seen it happen.

MM

Yeah I guess these are the kind of things that I would clear up before the game started.  “Are we going to use paper and pencil for anything???”  “Will it be OK to change the buys after a combat move if no dice for any battles have been rolled.”  With the improvement of technology- especially phones it will be harder and harder to accuse someone of “spying” or calculating.

For example, say I’m playing and and there is a key battle.  My partner can slip out to the bathroom or down the hall and use the AA app to calculate- even text back the results.  There is no way to be able to micro-manage or enforce these “no technology” rules.  You can’t force people to put their phones away or stalk them.  Same with spying.  You can’t stop.  There will always be people who can find the tech angle to anything especially with people who are fluent in the latest technology.  That’s why its best to just allow it IMO.

You are right - if someone wants to cheat, I guess they can find a way to do it.

Bottom line is - we have not had a problem with that sort of thing in a long, long time. If we were playing for money or something, maybe it would be a bigger issue. Greg, however, has always assumed the best in people - he outlines the rules - and figures that people will abide by them. However - if a team tries to cheat - the other team has the right to bring that to Greg’s attention and he will then handle it.

MM

@questioneer:

2. Prizes- I know you have a nice prize stash for the winners at Gencon and Origins.  However, having a prize for everyone there is huge.  For example at the Dominion qualifier, we charged $5 for the tourny.  With that cash I was able to buy prizes for everyone.  RioGrandeGames gave me free promos for everyone+ we had free raffles for the new Base Cards -$11 a piece- we got 8 of them.  Plenty of prizes went out and people left the tournament at least getting something and several others much more.  This made people very happy and I got rave reviews about the tourny online and in-person.

For AA, I would ask WOTC if they have any cheap giveaways and for all the players that come- free raffle them off.  For example I would ask them for things like the old IC pieces or IPC money maybe.  For an event like yours they should be putting out some things for everyone coming.  Personally if it was me I would get the cheap extra AA pieces and money at HistoricalBoardGaming.com.  It pays to have a lot of cheap, mass quantity items to give away by the dozens.  Its nice to have the big prizes (trophies, games) for the winners but that can get expensive I’m sure unless WOTC is putting out the $$$$ for that.  Maybe you already do this- just wanted to share some thoughts on what worked with us on the Dominion side of things.

Q, I know you have not been to GEN CON in awhile, but basically, we do this now.  We have a prize give away on Sunday around noon-1pm for all those that participated in any 1 AA event.  I give out door prize tickets and give away tons of stuff for everyone.

And with that being said, I always trying and have enough for most if not all that come and play.  Like a pen or something…and a lot of stuff does already come from vendors like HBG (thanks Doug!)…

I guess this brings up a point that must be brought to light regarding anyone that questions what we do and why we do what we do at the CON’s.  If someone hasn’t been there, and hasn’t been there more recently, how can anyone say anything negative about players, the rules systems, prizes etc. for anything we do for FTF play without knowing all the facts?  And then proceed in making comments on threads and eventually causing a big stir…?

Hey, we will be the first ones to say we don’t know everything about FTF play and AA in general and are ALWAYS OPEN to new ideas, suggestions and the like.  It is just when onlinerss (and that includes those that play FTF online, I guess if that is possible, but then that is where my lack of knowledge about playing online starts and stops and I won’t make comments on how that version of AA is played or what works better for that crowd) start jumping the gun before they really know and can comment on the experience first hand.