Tournament Likes / Tournament Hates....

[Martin Mayers]

I also think its important that there’s a TD who’d judicate games so the players will be freed up for the next round. Otherwise the scheduling gets all messed up.

It's something I and my cohorts running the thing are looking forward to immensely bwahaha

 

[pensatl1962]

I'd like to say something clever like, I forgot. Or speculate on the probability of dice with a Korean War theme receiving a positive review on the DM website. Truth is, I've promised SWMBO to hold off producing any new designs before 2019.

But thanks just the same for your enthusiasm for new BattleDice.

Chris, I admire you for keeping your priorities straight!

 

[bprobst]

It's something I and my cohorts running the thing are looking forward to immensely bwahaha

Adjudicating a match is one of the shittiest jobs a TD can be asked to do, and IMO anything you can do to make it unnecessary is a good thing. However, sometimes you can't get away from it. Just make sure that players are all aware of the implications (and their obligations, i.e., they must keep the game moving at a "reasonable" pace) at the start of the tournament.

I have been tempted to simply declare that any match not finished at the end of the allotted time is a loss for both players, with the hope that such a decree will force them to come to a decision on their own.

Where all of this falls down is when the scenario simply could never be "reasonably" expected to finish in the allotted time, i.e., bad judgement on the TD's part in selecting that scenario in the first place. Experience helps, as always ....

 

[Martin Mayers]

Adjudicating a match is one of the shittiest jobs a TD can be asked to do, and IMO anything you can do to make it unnecessary is a good thing. However, sometimes you can't get away from it. Just make sure that players are all aware of the implications (and their obligations, i.e., they must keep the game moving at a "reasonable" pace) at the start of the tournament.

I have been tempted to simply declare that any match not finished at the end of the allotted time is a loss for both players, with the hope that such a decree will force them to come to a decision on their own.

Where all of this falls down is when the scenario simply could never be "reasonably" expected to finish in the allotted time, i.e., bad judgement on the TD's part in selecting that scenario in the first place. Experience helps, as always ....

Whilst I sort of 'get' the idea of declaring losses for both players I've always thought it a bit of a 'cop out' on the part of a Tournament Director whose job I've always considered is to direct. I will have a team of three guys and if necessary we'll adjudicate by secret vote. Transparent and avoids any aggro ("sorry mate, the vote went 2-1 in favour of your opponent.....and no, we don't know and can't tell you who the two are")

 

[Mister T]

From my experience (having been on both sides of the fence), adjudication has never been a source of drama. It is a convenient and speedy way to end up a game if things are cleary explained to participants. Having a jury of three members avoid laying the blame on anyone for the decision. Here's how it's done from my experience. It is preferable that the members have already some knowledge of the scenario. The three jury members sits around the table, and the first player is called. One of the jury members ask him two questions:

1. "What are your remaining forces on board?" Then the player shows one by one its remaining OB (this is useful as sometimes jurors might not be aware of units behind level counters, of units with captured SW on top, etc. The player will also tell where its remaining HIP units are. With that, it will be possible to make a static assessment of the situation. No more than one minute for this

2. "What are your plans to win this scenario?" The player then explains how he is going to try to reach the victory conditions. jury members might ask a few questions, but these should be factual and should not reveal any opinion from the juror at this stage. No more than two minutes for this. Then it is possible to make a dynamic forward-looking assessment of the situation.

Then repeat with the second player.

At the end, the members are given a short period of time to reflect (one minute max.) and put their decision on paper (as a % of chance for one side to win). To avoid groupthink and the natural tendency of some to try to influence others (it happens all the time when a collective decision has to be made), i prefer that no discussion takes place between jury members, otherwise it voids the collective nature of decision-making. Then the papers are handed over to the TDs, which makes the average and announce the final decision to players. Each TD has to decide before the tournament what would be the threshold to declare a win rather than a draw (51% if the TD does not want the possibility of a draw; 60-65% otherwise).

The whole adjudication process should not take more than 7-8 minutes per game, with the possibility to run several adjudications in parallel.

(PS: in Copenhagen this year, as i said, i did not complain about the adjudication process, which was as always fair, it's just that i did not know that a draw would be counted as a loss. Had i known this, i would have asked to roll to determine the winner as this option is also foreseen in the Copenhagen rules (and it was convinced at the time that judges would surely go for a draw if they were asked).

 

[Jacometti]

First place for GROFAZ at ASLOK: $50. Throw in a couple of mini-tournament wins and you are a professional player.

JR

On the way to ASLOK, at US Immigration after mentioning you are going to a boardgame tournament, the usual next question is how much is the prize money. Obviously they want to find out if I am likely to walk away with a taxable 5-digit figure.

I tell them the winner of the whole 4-day GROFAZ thing may get $ 50.

They usually ask me to repeat that.

Then they sigh and stamp. The borders are still safe from invading ASL professionals.

 

[Ganjulama]

On the way to ASLOK, at US Immigration after mentioning you are going to a boardgame tournament, the usual next question is how much is the prize money.

I tell them the winner of the whole 4-day GROFAZ thing may get $ 50.

They usually ask me to repeat that.

I think you should screw with them this year and answer "$560 million dollars" then watch them wonder why a game they never heard of is offering so much prize money

 

[Jacometti]

I think you should screw with them this year and answer "$560 million dollars" then watch them wonder why a game they never heard of is offering so much prize money

Knowing US immigration, that joke would probably cost us our World Cup game ! False declaration to be visiting the US for leisure.....

 

[Justiciar]

On the way to ASLOK, at US Immigration after mentioning you are going to a boardgame tournament, the usual next question is how much is the prize money. Obviously they want to find out if I am likely to walk away with a taxable 5-digit figure.

I tell them the winner of the whole 4-day GROFAZ thing may get $ 50.

They usually ask me to repeat that.

Then they sigh and stamp. The borders are still safe from invading ASL professionals.

Try saying "The prize is in Bitcoin and I am not sure on how many zeroes are in Bitcoin."...

 

[Ganjulama]

Knowing US immigration, that joke would probably cost us our World Cup game ! False declaration to be visiting the US for leisure.....

Yeah, TSA and immigration have absolutely no sense of humor.

 

[Steven Pleva]

Yeah, TSA and immigration have absolutely no sense of humor.

TSA is an elite force of anti-terrorist commandos:

Steve

 

[newege]

So as all professional players regularly starve after a week or two when their prize money runs out, this has enabled ASL to remain a game played for fun and not for money.
von Marwitz

Even a cursory examination of players at ASL tourneys (as evidenced in Tourney T-shirt sizes) would indicate that none of us are professionals...

 

[JoeArthur]

Imposing precision dice.
Again.
No money involved. No statistical evidence.
Keep your religion to yourself.

Hello Robin - it's not a religion

I was merely pointing out the standards that backgammon players use and which I would like to see used at tournys - the thread is tourny likes / dislikes.

I have had players change dice on me, place the dice in their dice tower rather than giving them a good shake and drop and I just think - why should I have to point this out to my opponent? It should be part of the rules of the game or tourny.

Other people must also have had problems - I have been asked by a few opponents to share the same dice - and I happily comply.

There is no money involved - but for some of us their ranking in ASL appears to be more important than money...............surely you have had a game like that or met an opponent like that?

ASL is a game of skill - but unlike chess and those others there is a random component and that is represented by the dice. Is it not reasonable to ask that the dice system used in a tourny be as random as possible - which means using the backgammon system.

 

[JoeArthur]

Are the dice that MMP provides in Beyond Valor acceptable to use when playing ASL? Perhaps they should be the only dice allowed.

This one made me laugh. I have one dice from the Avalon Hill days that has two 5's and two 3's on it. I was using it back in the 80's until my opponent spotted it - D'oh. I wondered why my MMG's never got rate.......................and in defense of me looking like an idiot, would it occur to anyone to check that the dice are numbered correctly?

If it had two 1's and two 2's I might still be using it

So - check those dice before you use them...............

 

[Robin Reeve]

This one made me laugh. I have one dice from the Avalon Hill days that has two 5's and two 3's on it.

There were such dice, called something like "average dice", as official parts of some (figurine) wargame systems.
Perhaps were those Av Hill dice part of such a game.

 

[JoeArthur]

There were such dice, called something like "average dice", as official parts of some (figurine) wargame systems.
Perhaps were those Av Hill dice part of such a game.

Good point Robin - however I am one of those people that only play ASL.................

 

[Will Fleming]

First place for GROFAZ at ASLOK: $50. Throw in a couple of mini-tournament wins and you are a professional player.

JR

I would *like* the prize to be a few million USD or better still EUR. For 8th place as that is about the best I can hope for (still need some good luck or hung over opponents). First place can stay at $50 (or a zillion). It is beyond my reach.

 

[Sparafucil3]

First place for GROFAZ at ASLOK: $50. Throw in a couple of mini-tournament wins and you are a professional player.

JR

More than that. I believe 1st is $200, 2nd is $100, and 3/4 is $50. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

I have no plans to mandate precision dice. Most of the players use them already...
Steve

But if my opponent chooses not to use precision dice, I can ask to share them. I think that's how you rule it, no? -- jim

 

[Martin Mayers]

From my experience (having been on both sides of the fence), adjudication has never been a source of drama. It is a convenient and speedy way to end up a game if things are cleary explained to participants. Having a jury of three members avoid laying the blame on anyone for the decision. Here's how it's done from my experience. It is preferable that the members have already some knowledge of the scenario. The three jury members sits around the table, and the first player is called. One of the jury members ask him two questions:

1. "What are your remaining forces on board?" Then the player shows one by one its remaining OB (this is useful as sometimes jurors might not be aware of units behind level counters, of units with captured SW on top, etc. The player will also tell where its remaining HIP units are. With that, it will be possible to make a static assessment of the situation. No more than one minute for this

2. "What are your plans to win this scenario?" The player then explains how he is going to try to reach the victory conditions. jury members might ask a few questions, but these should be factual and should not reveal any opinion from the juror at this stage. No more than two minutes for this. Then it is possible to make a dynamic forward-looking assessment of the situation.

Then repeat with the second player.

At the end, the members are given a short period of time to reflect (one minute max.) and put their decision on paper (as a % of chance for one side to win). To avoid groupthink and the natural tendency of some to try to influence others (it happens all the time when a collective decision has to be made), i prefer that no discussion takes place between jury members, otherwise it voids the collective nature of decision-making. Then the papers are handed over to the TDs, which makes the average and announce the final decision to players. Each TD has to decide before the tournament what would be the threshold to declare a win rather than a draw (51% if the TD does not want the possibility of a draw; 60-65% otherwise).

The whole adjudication process should not take more than 7-8 minutes per game, with the possibility to run several adjudications in parallel.

(PS: in Copenhagen this year, as i said, i did not complain about the adjudication process, which was as always fair, it's just that i did not know that a draw would be counted as a loss. Had i known this, i would have asked to roll to determine the winner as this option is also foreseen in the Copenhagen rules (and it was convinced at the time that judges would surely go for a draw if they were asked).

Thank you for this post. Really helpful.