interesting switch from Sealion. The dice saved me
2015 League Rules Discussion Thread
-
2015 Axis and Allies Global 1940, Second Edition League Rules
1 - Anyone can join at any time no sign up is necessary just play a game in the league forum with the proper game naming convention (14L G40 Player1(side) v Player2(side))
2 - You may play anyone in the league, but only to best of 3 games per opponent will count in standings. EXCEPTION: If you and your opponent have each completed 13+ games during the league year, best of 5 games will count in the standings.
3 - Scoring/Playoffs
This is the first year that the official league standings will be determined by points per game (PPG) and not straight win percentage.
Each player will belong to 1 of 4 tiers based on their 2014 league year game results and PPG. Cutoffs for tiers will be at 3.50, 2.50, and 1.50 PPG.
Players will be awarded points as follows:
Win over tier 1,2,3,4 earn 6,5,4,3 points, respectively
Lose to tier 1,2,3,4 earn 2, 1, 0, 0 points, respectively
Point totals are divided by # of games played to arrive at PPG (which has proven to be a reliable measurement method of the ability of a player)
All opponents with less than 4 games played will be assigned to the default tier 3.League standings are available online here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=5
Playoffs will begin 2 Nov. 2014:
The 8 players who have completed 8 or more games with the highest PPG will advance to the main playoff (for being named league champion).
If there is a tie for 8th place then the tie will be broken by:
1 - head to head play
2 Who played more gamesAll players who have completed 4 or more games and who did not qualify for the main playoff may sign up for participation in the additional league playoffs. These playoffs will also start with 8 players each and will be ordered by PPG (with byes or play-in games as necessary).
4 - Game & rules default G40 2nd edition rules, ADS, NO’s, No Tech, Auction Bid. Rules available online here (Europe rules, then Pacific rules): http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/A&A_Europe_1940_2ndEd_Rulebook_LR.pdf
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/A&A_Pacific_1940_2ndEd_Rulebook_LR.pdf4a Tech or Low Luck Tech or Low Luck is allowed if you and your opponent agree prior to bidding. You should notate +Tech or +LL in the thread title for the moderators.
4b - Bidding Bidding will be used in order that both players are satisfied with the side they are playing and the starting setup. Players may negotiate with one another, with the following default settings:
- Adding units to sea zones - There must already be a unit of the same power in the sea zone
- Adding units to territories Territory must be controlled by the power placing units (e.g. UK can be added to Egypt, ANZAC cannot, French can be added to France, UK cannot)
Players may agree prior to bidding to change these default settings for their game.
5 - Posting Schedule
5a - Time Limits - There is a 72 hour time limit per move. However, play can be paused for a total of 21 days, for whatever reason, without penalty by simply posting the need for a vacation. Please specify the duration of your absence in your game.
5b - Weekend Players. If you can only play on the weekend or on certain days, please state so when you are looking for an opponent. (This is an exception to the 72 hour rule, requires one game round to be played at least every 144 hours!)
5c - 72 hr warnings: If 72 hrs goes by and no post from your opponent simply post “bump” and the number of the bump (Bump#1, Bump #2, or Bump #3), which creates the warning. (Note: only post “bump” in your warnings to make it clear you are issuing a warning. Do not add any small talk or other game talk in your warning post.)
5d - Bump warning and consequences - Each “bump” warning resets the clock for another 72 hrs. However, on the 4th “bump” warning the offending player will be disqualified and declared the loser for that game. (Note: You get only 3 warnings per game.) You must post the warning when it happens (or before the next move has been made by your opponent). You cannot retroactively issue a “bump” warning. (For example, if the game is in round 8 you cannot go back and issue a warning that occurred in round 7). “Bump” warnings can be issued for posting of partial turns (ie someone only posted their purchases), OOL requests, map questions, etc. But they follow the same 72 hr requirement.
5e - If a turn is not posted within 9 days of either the previous turn post (or request for decision on casualty choice, scrambling, kamikaze, etc) or the end of a predetermined “vacation”, then the player failing to post may be declared in default and lose the game.
6 - Losing Players are responsible to post results (in result thread). Post winner and loser, the sides each player played, and provide a link to the game thread. Winners may post the result when the game result was due to time limits of rule #5.
7 - The Regular Season starts on 2 Nov. 2013 and ends on 1 Nov. 2014. Games must be completed by 1 Nov. 2014 in order to be counted for the 2014 season. All game results reported between 2 Nov. 2013 and 1 Nov. 2014 will be included in the 2014 league standings.
Any games in progress that are completed after this date will be counted for the next league year (2015).
8 Use the separate game results thread for posting results of League Games.
9 - Moderators will make the final decision on any rules violations or other game disputes. Any rules questions may be answered by Krieghund (official A&A rules guy) or Gamerman01 (his official deputy). Moderator rulings are FINAL. PERIOD.
Have fun!!!
League Moderators
Commander Jennifer
Gamerman01 -
Proposed Changes:
- Bid Units:
- China is prohibited from getting any units from a bid that they ordinarily could not own in the game. In other words, they may only receive Infantry, Artillery and Fighters from any allied bids.
- Bid Units:
- No territory may receive more than one unit from a bid.
- Bid Units:
- Only a territory’s owner may have units from a bid placed there - even if more than one nation has troops starting on that territory or sea zone. (i.e. Egypt has ANZAC and British units, but it is British sovereign soil so only England may place bid units there.)
These are just suggestions - something to start with for the discussion. Feel free to chime in with any changes you find relevant or about the ones I listed above.
The new League year starts 1/1/2015. Playoff date for 2015 will probably change, historically we end the league on the first Sunday of November.
-
I want an official rule that if you dislike a bid, that you can opt out as Axis. For example as an Axis I dislike bids that include anything other then infantry/artillery/transports or as an exception a bomber for the Russians.
-
I want an official rule that if you dislike a bid, that you can opt out as Axis. For example as an Axis I dislike bids that include anything other then infantry/artillery/transports or as an exception a bomber for the Russians.
There is no need for such a rule - if you dislike someone’s bid, then don’t play against them. And you already have the right to agree in advance, before bidding, what kind of restrictions you want on the bidding.
-
I agree with Arathorn. You and your opponent can set extra limitations on your bids if you like, but to arbitrarily bar someone from bidding a Fighter to the West Indies seems a bit harsh. (sorry, it was the most ridiculous thing I could think of in an inebriated state.)
-
- Bid Units:
- Only a territory’s owner may have units from a bid placed there - even if more than one nation has troops starting on that territory or sea zone. (i.e. Egypt has ANZAC and British units, but it is British sovereign soil so only England may place bid units there.)
I suggest that we exclude this restriction for territories. What could be a reason behind the restriction? Please reconsider.
Btw, you mention see zone. Not clear who is sz110 owner, UK or France?
-
I could be over ruled, but I would say given that the name of that particular stretch of sea way is The English Channel, that it is England’s sea zone.
As far as I know, only France, Malaya, England and Egypt have multiple different national armies on it. Â Why would you say that you would need bid units from multiple nations there? Â (Not saying you are wrong, wondering as to your reason.)
Armies, mind you, not navies. There’s what, Sea Zone 10 as well if you count Navies…(Don’t have a map in front of me right now.)
-
Are you saying you set this placement restriction just because it is only four teritorries and not sure wather anybody needs the bid units from multiple nations there? I cannot say for the entire community - only for myself. As Allies I’ve really considered adding ANZAC art or event tank to Egypt. We can talk offline what for. Well, if you believe it breaks the game or have another reason you don’t like share, let’s leave it as it is.
-
More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent’s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong. E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too, please voice up. -
Are you saying you set this placement restriction just because it is only four teritorries and not sure wather anybody needs the bid units from multiple nations there? I cannot say for the entire community - only for myself. As Allies I’ve really considered adding ANZAC art or event tank to Egypt. We can talk offline what for. Well, if you believe it breaks the game or have another reason you don’t like share, let’s leave it as it is.
In my humble opinion, I think that such obvious restrictions as only letting the controlling power getting to place units in a territory/sz preserve the intention of the game. Yes, there are many things that can be thought of that could work well in the game strategically or tactically, but as a purist, I personally think that too many variations can altar the natural course of the game. I think the potential combo of a more potent ANZAC in Egypt not only violates course of history, but it also altars the nature of Middle East warfare too far. But that’s just my two cents, and only my opinion. :)
More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent�s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong. E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too, please voice up.This is another rule that I find to be unnecessary, since agreements between players can always be reached prior to the game regarding speeding up games, making assumptions etc. I’ve only had 1 or 2 games where the atmosphere in the game turned sour, and then a strict adherence to protocol was exercised after the dispute.
If there is a dispute between players, the moderators always lean toward preserving original dice anyway. And if there is bad blood between players, making assumptions, then one can always just go back to strict adherence to the sequence of play.One of the things that I love about this game is its “code of honour”, being a gentlemen’s game. Playing with people like Wheatbeer, Karl7, Gamerman, Boldfresh (if you’re not a weasel ;) ), and MrRoboto (and many more so forgive me if you’re not mentioned) is just a pleasure, as you know that there is gentlemanly courtesy, and a default understanding that there is no ill will or intent behind a potential mistake. So I don’t see the need for too many added restrictions beyond what the game itself and the minimum requirements of a functional league demand. But then again, I am a libertarian ;) I never believed in big governments ;) ha!
Again, just my two cents.
-
Historically there was no precedent for placing ground units in a territory not controlled by your nation. I am not saying there isn’t a valid tactic for having a French infantryman stationed in Midway, for instance, just that I would feel it is more consistent with traditional bidding rules that you must own the territory or sea zone before you can place bid units there. Just proposing it as a clarification for next year’s league bidding rules.
As for scramble rules, I think there are obvious scenarios when you should always ask your opponent first (amphibious assault on a victory city and especially a capitol) and obvious scenarios when you can just assume they do not scramble. If they decide to scramble after the battle, you will have to reroll it from the beginning. If a reroll is required then bombardments could be lost. After all, that is a major purpose behind scrambling fighters - to negate shore bombardments.
Just my two cents on it.
-
How about sweetening the pot for those Tier 1 guys? Us Tier 4 low lifes only get a chance to play a small percentage of the top dogs because we’re fodder…rightfully so. I will say those who have ran me over I greatly appreciate the lesson…I think I’ve learned a little about some things…(not saying the tier 2,3, and 4s haven’t done their teachings as well).
But I’m looking to get a way to get these guys to play…If they play us with no bid as the Allies or give us a super bid of +20 or so, shouldn’t that be worth some thing to them as well? Maybe an extra Point?
Give us plankton a chance! 8-)
-
How about sweetening the pot for those Tier 1 guys? Us Tier 4 low lifes only get a chance to play a small percentage of the top dogs because we’re fodder…rightfully so. I will say those who have ran me over I greatly appreciate the lesson…I think I’ve learned a little about some things…(not saying the tier 2,3, and 4s haven’t done their teachings as well).
But I’m looking to get a way to get these guys to play…If they play us with no bid as the Allies or give us a super bid of +20 or so, shouldn’t that be worth some thing to them as well? Maybe an extra Point?
Give us plankton a chance! 8-)
plankton is tier 3 :P
-
I’d hate to see anyone get turned down for a game by any other player for any reason except, perhaps, if the two players don’t really get along and the other one just wants to avoid a frustrating experience. You’d think their “extra points” for a T1 to play a T4 would be a quick, decisive kill to add to the win column.
Perhaps a point structure more like:
T4 - Earns 3 points for wins against any opponent
T3 - Earns 3 points for a win against any opponent tiers 1, 2 and 3. Earns 4 points for a win against a Tier 4 opponent.
T2 - Earns 2 points for a win against any opponent tiers 1 and 2, earns 3 points for a win against a tier 3 opponent and 4 points for a win again a tier 4 opponent.
T1 - Earns 1 point for each level of tier their opponent is for a win (4 points for T4, 3 points for T3, 2 points for T2, 1 point for T1.)This encourages upper tiers to play lower tiers because the victories SHOULD be easier and they get the same points regardless. It also allows lower tiers to challenge upper tiers to learn more advanced game play and strategies just by going “holy heck, that unit can DO THAT!?!” as they watch their prized fleet sink slowly into the deep.
Again, we are just spit-balling here, please no one take these comments as if this is what IS going to happen. Sorry, last year ideas were floated and we had people misconstrue ideas as these were actual changes being made. The whole idea of these discussion threads is to locate existing problems and try to resolve them for next year in a way the community thinks appropriate. It prevents Gamer and I from becoming autocrats, or at least, I hope it does. :evil:
-
Dear Jennifer,
Nothing of what you just wrote makes any sense.
Have you even thought about the consequences of such a point system?
Did you run the math on it?
;)
Arathorn
-
Why not have a certain number of exhibition games (ie, points are not REQUIRED to count toward tier 1’s PPG if he wins but MUST count if he loses)… ie, tier 1’s must accept up to X number of challenges (X = 1 or 2 should be sufficient) from tier 3 and tier 4 players per year in order to be eligible for the playoffs. If a tier 1 gets no challenges levied against them, then of course they are still eligible.
Just spitballen - big picture.
-
Just became aware of this thread. Reading in time order, and at this point am only through the bidding discussion.
The league bidding rules are more like guidelines. You and your opponent can agree to whatever bidding rules you want, before bidding. The league bidding rules are just the default - what you can count on if you don’t agree to something else. It’s to help league players, not to restrict them.
Therefore, no-one should really have a significant problem with the league bidding rules, because they shouldn’t be tying your hands at all.
-
Why not have a certain number of exhibition games (ie, points are not REQUIRED to count toward tier 1’s PPG if he wins but MUST count if he loses)… ie, tier 1’s must accept up to X number of challenges (X = 1 or 2 should be sufficient) from tier 3 and tier 4 players per year in order to be eligible for the playoffs. If a tier 1 gets no challenges levied against them, then of course they are still eligible.
Just spitballen - big picture.
when i say X = 1 or 2 i mean TOTAL, not per player. So if there are 10-15 tier 1 players who are contending for playoff spots, then there are 10-30 games that tier 3 and 4 players could request. each tier 3 or 4 player could request up to a couple per year, for example.
-
More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent�s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong. E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too, please voice up.This is a good point, and I have added it to my list of things to specify in next year’s league rules.
There will be guidelines printed about how to handle these situations.Basically, when you make any assumption for the other player, obviously you should give them the benefit of every doubt. As I did for you when I attacked Guam (I think it was you). You may have misunderstood what I was doing (IIRC you re-rolled a hit that didn’t need to be re-rolled). If you have any problem with Guam whatsoever, please bring it up with me via PM so that I can fully explain (again) how my assumption helped you, and could not have possibly handicapped you in any way.
Again, good point, and I will add language that describes what is expected when making assumptions for the other player.
-
@Cmdr:
4b - Bidding Bidding will be used in order that both players are satisfied with the side they are playing and the starting setup. Players may negotiate with one another, with the following default settings:
- Adding units to sea zones - There must already be a unit of the same power in the sea zone
- Adding units to territories Territory must be controlled by the power placing units (e.g. UK can be added to Egypt, ANZAC cannot, French can be added to France, UK cannot)
Players may agree prior to bidding to change these default settings for their game.
These are the rules currently in force. What is the problem? I think Jennifer might have caused some confusion by listing it as a proposed change, #3, when it’s really not a change at all. :-P
Again, read the last sentence. PLAYERS MAY AGREE PRIOR TO BIDDING TO CHANGE THESE DEFAULT SETTINGS FOR THEIR GAMESo again, the league bidding rules should not be a problem for anybody at all.
Suggested Topics
