Tournament Purpose

[Honosbinda]

Let's look at the definition.
1. (in a sport or game) a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize.

So, a label of Tournament suggests there is competition (compete-strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.)

If we are to assume most players are attending tournaments to have FUN and winning is irrelevant. Then we can conclude that its not really a tournament after all.
Only those few, Usually the top players have ANY chance of winning, that come to compete actually are participating in a tournament.

Which leads us to the rest of the pack. Those that just want to have fun and socialize.
First of all, this is perfectly fine to show up for a Tournament and have fun and socialize...Many of the followers of this thread will completely disregard this comment as to fully attack the other statements.

The rest of the pack, having obtained the mentality of not actually seeing a tournament victory forego the STIFF competition and kinda just go through the motions, having fun all the while. Again, this is ok, but is NOT a tournament setting. It's more like Game Day attitude.

This leaves only the top 8-10 players (based on a 20-30 man tournament) that are actually participating in the Tournament as they are the only ones that have a REAL chance of victory. (Before you go on and say seed 20 won ASLOK ##...please include all the other data of most of all the other tournaments with a significance factor included.)

Given that this is the case. The top 8-10 players don't even really start competing amongst themselves until the 3rd+ round of a tournament...meaning the only competition they are up against only matters in 2 games at most.
The challenge of the tournament doesn't exist until later rounds. Now sure, this is a standard SPORTS format. But this is a game so esoteric that only old farts have come to enjoy...So, why not treat it differently??


Why not actually have a challenging tournament, where the TOP 1/2 compete for the TOP prize, and the bottom have Compete for a Secondary prize.
Both halves of players will likely be playing their peers and will have closer games overall (assuming scenarios are balanced) and THUS be having SO MUCH MORE FUN as the GAMES aren't decided Very early as they typically are vs uneven matches.
AND that the 2nd tier can actually obtain a championship in their division. (Plaques aren't that expensive) More players would leave satisfied than just happy to see their old buddies.

More FUN can be had by the 2nd set of competitors, Those that are there to have fun.
AND the TOP tier players will have a far more strenuous challenge to prove they are Champion material. They will have to win 4-5 challenging games. This will likely result in a greater variety of Tournament winners as they will be competing in more games with their peers than having a 2-3 round "BYE"

I'm not sure why this hasn't been adapted other than just "we've done this for 30yrs".
You can say..."Well, it's not a REAL tournament then"
You'd be correct...as 1/2 the players are there only to have fun as described by nearly all posts above and probably the rest of the readers of this thread....

WHY call it a TOURNAMENT when most of the participants aren't there to compete?

Spot on about the rest of the pack, and this is why they want to derail the thread. Also because it's you and you aren't part of the welcoming committee, of course

As for splitting the tournaments into levels, I think they used to do this at the Double-One back in the day, where they had groups of proficiencies. It made sense and I think it could work.

However, all of these tournament directors seem to have their own ideas and I don't think it would be easy to apply uniformly -- that being said, somehow they got together and arranged for AREA to be mostly uniformly applied -- there are some tournaments out there that refuse to keep records, ASLOK being a notable exception, probably due to the mass of data that would need to be taken care of. They were thinking about fixing that though, last I heard.

 

[Honosbinda]

Also by me: (Which is why I am flexible enough to work with you allow us both to have what we want and not force my opinion on you. Too bad more people aren't so cocksure of themselves to think theirs is the only opinion that matters).

You clearly agreed with my position to some extent when you worked with Doug on that project given that was the outcome. -- jim

Well, I was trying to give HKW some credit for advancing the idea rather than simply indicating he follows you around as if a sycophant, not that there would be any identifiable advantage for him to agree with practically everything you utter, which he does.

No, I didn't clearly agree. You do tend to think everything is about you, don't you? If you go back and read what I said, I told you that you were not the originator of the idea of hiding records. It was indicated that this was a residual requirement from the predecessor who handled AREA before. I may have agreed with HIM, or not cared about it (more likely), though I think it is lame to hide AREA ratings while still participating in it.

I had no idea you were pushing the issue with Doug and it seems you are still trying to take credit for originating the idea, which you didn't. All I acknowledge is that you may have had some influence tipping the issue one way or the other, but what I agreed was that Doug should honor his predecessors wishes. Sorry to disappoint, but nothing to do with you at all.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Been looking through the Events & Tournaments sub forum ... can't see any posted in there?
Are these advertised on a different forum?

 

[JoeArthur]

convivial surroundings

You meant to say that all the UK tournys have a bar in the gaming room or next to it didn't you Ian

 

[Sparafucil3]

Well, I was trying to give HKW some credit for advancing the idea rather than simply indicating he follows you around as if a sycophant, not that there would be any identifiable advantage for him to agree with practically everything you utter, which he does.

No, I didn't clearly agree. You do tend to think everything is about you, don't you? If you go back and read what I said, I told you that you were not the originator of the idea of hiding records. It was indicated that this was a residual requirement from the predecessor who handled AREA before. I may have agreed with HIM, or not cared about it (more likely), though I think it is lame to hide AREA ratings while still participating in it.

I had no idea you were pushing the issue with Doug and it seems you are still trying to take credit for originating the idea, which you didn't. All I acknowledge is that you may have had some influence tipping the issue one way or the other, but what I agreed was that Doug should honor his predecessors wishes. Sorry to disappoint, but nothing to do with you at all.

No, I am not trying to take credit, that's your strawman. All I did was ask, discuss, and offer ideas, nothing more. But it was implemented and does allow for the thing I was asking for and which you claim to disagree with here. I find it interesting that in the main we agree: we don't feel the need to push our opinions on people even while we may hold our opinions strongly. Which isn't something you have come out and stated but actions speak louder than words.

I think any participation in AREA ratings is lame and nothing more than virtual dick-measuring. But I understand some want that sort of thing in their lives so I support that in a way which allows me to opt out. -- jim

FYI: I always checked "AREA opt-out" on my cards when I turned them in. Of course, my opponents didn't and when their cards were entered guess what happened to my opt-out? That's right, it wasn't honored. Now my AREA gets flagged at the record level and my "opt-out" is honored as it should have been from the beginning without detracting from their desire. I thank Doug for implemented what should have been all along.

 

[Honosbinda]

No, I am not trying to take credit, that's your strawman. All I did was ask, discuss, and offer ideas, nothing more. But it was implemented and does allow for the thing I was asking for and which you claim to disagree with here. I find it interest that in the main we agree: we don't feel the need to push our opinions on people even while we may hold our opinions strongly. Which isn't something you have come out and stated but actions speak louder than words.

I think any participation in AREA ratings is lame and nothing more than virtual dick-measuring. But I understand some want that sort of thing in their lives so I support that in a way which allows me to opt out. -- jim

FYI: I always checked "AREA opt-out" on my cards when I turned them in. Of course, my opponents didn't and when their cards were entered guess what happened to my opt-out? That's right, it wasn't honored. Now my AREA gets flagged at the record level and my "opt-out" is honored as it should have been from the beginning without detracting from their desire. I thank Doug for implemented what should have been all along.

Okay, it has been implemented and I think it's lame because it's intended as a measure of tournament ability and that is what these AREA ratings are. There is nothing lame about measuring performance in a competitive situation. It's done all the time. Call it dick measuring if you want, that's a cop-out phrase too, because it means fear or dislike of competition (not to mention sexist). So don't play in competitive tourneys then, Jim! I could respect that you are protesting AREA by not participating, but that isn't what you're doing.

You're playing in the tournaments, your rating should be public. Just as in chess, tennis, you name it. Imagine if you could opt out of being ranked in a tournament while still playing for prize money? The notion is ludicrous and perfectly analogous to what you are doing. The more I hear of it the more I am apt to lobby this not be allowed, especially, as you say, it's only for you.

Yes, the opt out was there before you brought this up. I remember finding out about that back in 2008 or so when I came to a UK tournament for the first time. I always and still find it puzzling anyone would want to opt out, I guess because they can't handle the pressure of being ranked? It's even more puzzling that this idea of opt-out was allowed. These are tournaments and there is a rating system, that's it. There is a record of who you play and lose to, and that public information as well, or should be.

Why not? Is there a humiliation factor involved, somewhere, for publicly losing to someone far worse? That couldn't be the issue, could it?

But you are right, under the circumstances, if you clicked opt out, you should have been opted out, I suppose, as long as that didn't affect the winning points the other player would get (or losing ones in case of your victory, of course). And yes, Doug has arranged to take care of that correctly, as you say. Time to convince him otherwise, perhaps. cheers!

 

[Sparafucil3]

Why not? Is there a humiliation factor involved, somewhere, for publicly losing to someone far worse? That couldn't be the issue, could it?

I have told you why at least twice in this thread alone. You don't honestly need me to post it a third time do you? Perhaps you could just scroll back and re-read it. Or you could continue to make up reasons for me in some lame attempt to mock me. Matters not to me. If anyone wants to see my area rating, I will gladly share it with them but that's my decision to make, as it has been since the beginning. Now it is finally being enforced and I am happy for that. If you want to see who has beat me, I will share it with you. Of course, you wrote the code (whole or in part) so you already know how to do it. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

Jim, I stand chided, my question was intended as generalization given that, way back in the day, this opt out thing was granted to players who didn't want them and unfortunately I used a pronoun which gave you the impression my questions were specific to you, and not general. That is, it was rhetorical for some other reasons that others chose to opt out back then. No intent to mock you. I am just guessing that those could be reasons.

Yes you have clearly expressed your own reasons, but let's face it, people don't always give every reason for doing things, just the ones that sound good to the public. That statement applies to you, me or anyone. I'm sure there are some embarrassments on my track record, but what is that to me is a triumph for my opponent. [edit] That being said, anyone who wants them can see them RIGHT NOW without having to ask. I welcome this aspect of AREA.

Actually, no, I didn't write the code, that's all Doug's baby! What I did was gopher all the data that hadn't been collected for the last three years from tournament directors around the world, and put it into a format he could easily use to upload it into his new system. No, if I had to code what he did, I couldn't do it to save my life! But yes, if anyone wanted to hack the code, presumably it could be done if they knew what they were doing.

I don't need to know anything specific about your won loss or AREA rating right now. But perhaps if we do cross swords with our green army men, I'd be curious. Sometime people match up well with some and not with others. It'd be interesting to see who our common opponents have been, in that case.

 

[Martin Mayers]

To have a competition and win. If you aren't being competitive in a tournament, then what's the sense of calling it a tournament?

Just go to your game club and play Hill 621 for the 17th time.

No, absolutely the fun is in winning when it comes to a tournament. If not, you funsters-only types can just agree to sign off on losing the game and forfeit your AREA rating points before we play. Then we'll play for fun as you see it.

If the fun is in winning, then there are going to be a lot of disappointed people in attendance as only one person can win.

I don't understand or agree with what you're saying. And I don't understand the prickly nature of your thread responses.

Are you attending my November tournament in Blackpool out of interest? The prizes are pretty wonderful if you fancy a crack for them...

 

[Sparafucil3]

Jim, I stand chided, my question was intended as generalization given that, way back in the day, this opt out thing was granted to players who didn't want them and unfortunately I used a pronoun which gave you the impression my questions were specific to you, and not general. That is, it was rhetorical for some other reasons that others chose to opt out back then. No intent to mock you. I am just guessing that those could be reasons.

Yes you have clearly expressed your own reasons, but let's face it, people don't always give every reason for doing things, just the ones that sound good to the public. That statement applies to you, me or anyone. I'm sure there are some embarrassments on my track record, but what is that to me is a triumph for my opponent. [edit] That being said, anyone who wants them can see them RIGHT NOW without having to ask. I welcome this aspect of AREA.

Actually, no, I didn't write the code, that's all Doug's baby! What I did was gopher all the data that hadn't been collected for the last three years from tournament directors around the world, and put it into a format he could easily use to upload it into his new system. No, if I had to code what he did, I couldn't do it to save my life! But yes, if anyone wanted to hack the code, presumably it could be done if they knew what they were doing.

I don't need to know anything specific about your won loss or area rating right now. But perhaps if we do cross swords with our green army men, I'd be curious. Sometime people match up well with some and not with others. It be interesting to see who our common opponents have been, in that case.

My current rating is 1774 and includes the games I played in CPH. According to the site, I have been as high as 1830. These days, I spend more of my time teaching than I do challenging myself. I also have lost the ability to play regularly without passion (which is what it takes for me to not be unpleasant to play with when luck starts to tilt against me). I don't know that I honestly play at that level but I am trying to find some challenging opponents in time to prep for ASLOk or Supporting Fire so my game is more solid. We'll see how I do next time out.

Player	Att/Def	Al/Ax	Result	Player	Att/Def	Al/Ax	Scenario	Date	Tourney
Jim Bishop	attacker	axis	loses to	Michal Sedlacko	defender	allied	SP220 Hoepner's Edict	2021-08-15	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	allied	loses to	Mattias Bergwall	attacker	axis	BoF17	2021-08-14	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	attacker	axis	loses to	Juan Santacruz	defender	allied	AP169	2021-08-14	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	axis	beats	Magnus Rimvall	attacker	allied	J178 Old Friends	2021-08-13	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	allied	beats	Svante Sandblom	attacker	axis	SP269 Retaking Kharkov	2021-08-13	SCO_21

These are the five games I played in CPH. Three of those games were decided in part by one side having some particularly good fortune. Two of those players are at least 200 points too low in AREA ratings. One player in particular surprised me with a style of play I did not expected and his level of play is probably 300 points above what AREA has him. As I said, I try to bring my A-game and let your level of play speak for itself. That way I am not expecting to get away with some cheese when that 1800+ player with a 1500 ranking shows up.

All of them were enjoyable games with people I had either never played before or played very rarely (I had played Michal and Magnus before). I would like to think all of them would say the games with me were at least tolerable but you would have to ask them. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

If the fun is in winning, then there are going to be a lot of disappointed people in attendance as only one person can win.

I don't understand or agree with what you're saying. And I don't understand the prickly nature of your thread responses.

Are you attending my November tournament in Blackpool out of interest? The prizes are pretty wonderful if you fancy a crack for them...

Martin, no doubt you'd like a crack at me for the awful dice you rolled last time we played. ha!

Nobody has said there isn't fun in just playing. But there can be, and is, additional fun in winning! Do you dispute that? Do you watch any sports and see the joy of victory? Yes, there is disappointment in defeat when competing, so what? Do you not have fun when you win, but hate it? All fun and disappointment is temporary, not permanent.

What is so hard to understand about having fun while winning? Explain that to me then I can answer you.

edit -- as far as being prickly is concerned, really? I'm not going to defile the wonderful nature of the English language (especially as refined by those amazing Americans) by mincing my words so they are acceptable to everyone in imbecilic docility. It's like Lady Sovereign sang -- love me or hate me, that is the question, if you love me then, thank you, if you hate me then, *%£$ you Note that she is a product of British society, so you might approve!

edit 2 -- thanks for the invite, but isn't that tournament kinda sponsored in an odd way with odd scenario requirements and off-key playing pieces? I think I gave you feedback about that situation in your survey. Or is this a different tourney I am thinking about?

 

[Honosbinda]

My current rating is 1774 and includes the games I played in CPH. According to the site, I have been as high as 1830. These days, I spend more of my time teaching than I do challenging myself. I also have lost the ability to play regularly without passion (which is what it takes for me to not be unpleasant to play with when luck starts to tilt against me). I don't know that I honestly play at that level but I am trying to find some challenging opponents in time to prep for ASLOk or Supporting Fire so my game is more solid. We'll see how I do next time out.

Player	Att/Def	Al/Ax	Result	Player	Att/Def	Al/Ax	Scenario	Date	Tourney
Jim Bishop	attacker	axis	loses to	Michal Sedlacko	defender	allied	SP220 Hoepner's Edict	2021-08-15	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	allied	loses to	Mattias Bergwall	attacker	axis	BoF17	2021-08-14	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	attacker	axis	loses to	Juan Santacruz	defender	allied	AP169	2021-08-14	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	axis	beats	Magnus Rimvall	attacker	allied	J178 Old Friends	2021-08-13	SCO_21
Jim Bishop	defender	allied	beats	Svante Sandblom	attacker	axis	SP269 Retaking Kharkov	2021-08-13	SCO_21

These are the five games I played in CPH. Three of those games were decided in part by one side having some particularly good fortune. Two of those players are at least 200 points too low in AREA ratings. One player in particular surprised me with a style of play I did not expected and his level of play is probably 300 points above what AREA has him. As I said, I try to bring my A-game and let your level of play speak for itself. That way I am not expecting to get away with some cheese when that 1800+ player with a 1500 ranking shows up.

All of them were enjoyable games with people I had either never played before or played very rarely (I had played Michal and Magnus before). I would like to think all of them would say the games with me were at least tolerable but you would have to ask them. -- jim

You better check AREA. no joke, your entire record is, at the moment, public knowledge. something has gone awry!

 

[Sparafucil3]

You better check AREA. no joke, your entire record is, at the moment, public knowledge. something has gone awry!

I made it public by my own choosing -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

I made it public by my own choosing -- jim

Hurrah! Now I can find something to really like! I'll give you one of those lovey dovey happy face icon likey things. well done. And nice rating by the way, that's in the high heavens.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Interesting thread.

As an attendee:
I want to meet my friends again. It may surprise some who know me but I'm not a particularly social person. The friends I've made at ASL rank amongst my closest.
I want to play well. I do like to win (and have won the occasional tournament). But I don't like to play poorly.
I want to enjoy good food and drink.

As a joint organiser (of Bounding Fire Blackpool, UK, November...)
I want everyone to have a blast and enjoy the tourney. I want them to say "this is the best tournament I've ever attended".
I want our prizes to blow everyone away - hence we've tried to work outside the box in terms of securing sponsorship and we plough every penny paid in subs back into the purchase of prizes. This was the decision both I and Simon (Stanihope) made when we became involved in organising.
We don't want one person scooping all the booty and we constantly agonise over ways to ensure that the wealth is spread around.
Meet my friends again, and enjoy good food and drink - goes without saying.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hurrah! Now I can find something to really like! I'll give you one of those lovey dovey happy face icon likey things. well done. And nice rating by the way, that's in the high heavens.

My primary ASL mentor is @Fort. I have had the pleasure of playing a lot of the upper echelon as well. Fort would say I should be doing better. He always encouraged me and told me I was mostly limited by myself. At times, I am sure I have done him proud. At others, I am sure he expected more. -- jim

 

[hongkongwargamer]

As an aside. I apologise for shamelessly plugging my upcoming tournament LOL.

You might as well tell people exactly when and where!

 

[Honosbinda]

My primary ASL mentor is @Fort. I have had the pleasure of playing a lot of the upper echelon as well. Fort would say I should be doing better. He always encouraged me and told me I was mostly limited by myself. At times, I am sure I have done him proud. At others, I am sure he expected more. -- jim

Yeah, nice. I played Fort in a tourney ages ago at Avaloncon. They weren't ranking the matches in those days except as general AREA matches if everyone was a member and agreed. I won the match but not sure I'd beat him today. Probably not. He bought my old fanzine and integrated it with his a couple years later. Of course, buying fanzines in those days was called transferring remaining subscription money over to the new owner.

I beat Fish for the Championship at the Bitter Ender way back when, too, was called Winds of War in Greensboro run by Ray Wolozyn. Can't say luck didn't have something to do with that victory, but it always does at some point. I could have thrown in the towel turn 1, but I didn't fail my personal MC, rallied everybody he had broken, and after that he couldn't get his reinforcements in time to counterattack. We played Bread Factory.

Prior to this, in a visit to Ohio, I played Mark Nixon thrice informally and won thrice, then he took me over to play a four way game with Fish and I think Rick Troha -- their team crushed us. A lot of fun though, I don't play team games much. That might have been the only time.

I saw Fort again in Raleigh, 2014. He came with you, as I recall, but you and I didn't get introduced to each other and I didn't have time to socialize after hours, having other obligations to meet. I played Deller at that same tournament and he beat me. I didn't quite pull off the Banzai and he was/is quite a good sport about it, cheering me on as my troops died in vain! lol. My other very common opponents when I lived in Raleigh were Tom Harper and Alan Saltzmann, a few others as well. Both of those were at the tournament as well.

So I think all those aforementioned are our common opponents down memory lane. Most recently 7 years ago, and most long prior to that. Probably not much to glean about playing each other in modern times other than our ratings. Mine is currently 1729. Could be one for the ages cheers.

 

[Honosbinda]

Ah I know who you are now yes. Hi.
Main tournament sponsor is Bounding Fire Productions. They graciously allow us to use scenarios which have completed playtest or are close to playtest completion. So the scenarios we use are blind, and unpublished. No-one who plays will have seen the scenario before, and in most cases it will be a map they've never played on previously. It seems to be a popular format. It's certainly very different than many other tournaments. Probably quite unique. But we wanted to shake up the scene a little bit, especially as our tournament replaced Intensive Fire which had died on it's arse.

So when you say odd (pejoratively, although with no detected malice intended) I'd say more 'unique'.
Sponsored in an odd way? Not really. Bounding Fire graciously have handed us between two and three hundred pounds worth of prizes each year. They allow me to choose how ever many from around a dozen to 20 scenarios for me to use. All that they ask is feedback. BFBlackpool is effectively the very final part of a playtest process. But they have on some occasion made some pretty dramatic changes to some scenarios based on the feedback people have provided. But also, they have on occasion picked up on observations made ("this SSR/VC/etc. could be worded slightly differently" etc.)

Odd scenario requirements? Not really. All the scenarios are pretty standard. There was a possibility that this year I may have had to use five similarly themed scenarios for the tourney hence my 'market research'. But things have moved on. We now have two PTO scenarios, two Finn themed scenarios, and a standard ETO (Brit v German) scenario.

Off key playing pieces? Eye of the beholder...Bounding Fire push the boundaries for sure, but not really too dramatically I've never thought. 2nd Line Russians I guess is what your referencing? There's a possibility that one scenario will feature such. Occasionally there are vehicles involved which haven't been released in the main counter pack and whereby people have to use a little imagination. A small price to pay for being part of the playing of a brand new scenario is the general feedback.

Fourth year this year. I've tried a number of things. Some have worked, some haven't. I think I'm reaching a point now where I know pretty much what flies, what I can get away with, and what people like.

Other quirks? Hm. Randomly drawn tournament. Call it 'the FA Cup' of ASL tournaments. Two favourites CAN (and have) been drawn in the opening groups. Only one can progress.
Drop out of the main tournament after the three group games - automatic entry into a final 'mini tournament' which encompasses the same scenarios that the semi and finalists will see.
Prizes - Lots. Main tournament winner (diorama and other swag). Runner up (smaller diorama and swag). Mini winners (swag). Random draws for entrants (swag). Prize for entrants/winners of the scratch tournament (a single scenario...usually an earlier playtest which people can just pick up and play at any point (swag).

Unique for odd -- check!

It's an odd sponsorship because it's a shameless plug designed entirely for their products. Most sponsors graciously give product for the tournament in general. Not that I have any value judgement. You've gotta get people over to Blackpool after all, and get things rolling.

The scenario assignment is very odd. You have to admit -- untested scenarios, played blind, at a competitive tournament? You even admit the tournament is about playtesting. I'm totally not in favor of that. If that's the case, every single person playing in the tournament had better get a prize for the sacrifice of basically not playing a real tournament, but a weekend of playtesting!

As far as playing pieces go, pushing 2nd line Russians is a bad idea imo, simply because the Russians were deliberately designed by John Hill NOT TO HAVE THEM. Glad there is only one scenario, might be okay. Same for their off color leaders they like to insert into the line-up. But not a big deal.

And kudos for you to continue pushing the system and traditional boundaries. My opinion is just that, worth the fly paper it lands on I should show up just to show support, but it's a haul from Eastbourne to Blackpool, train or car. And I like to bring my own stuff. Plus if it's anything like the old hotel we played at, I need to bring a professional lighting system so I can see what I am doing!

 

[Paul S NJ]

I agree with Jim, the main purpose of a tournament is to play ASL competitively, see friends, and have fun. Winning is certainly gratifying and intense championship games are pretty awesome to play. But everyone should know that any given game of ASL can be dominated by a few great or bad rolls. We should all keep some perspective; in the end we just are enjoying a hobby and playing a silly dice game.

Personally I see tournaments as a combination of reunion and personal challenge. I also find it fun to help newer players learn some ASL tactics and integrate how to put the rules and capabilities together into competitive play.

A few weeks ago I attended the 'Tussle in the Tundra'. Chuck organized a good group of scenarios (didn't use any balance and usually just rolled for side). I had two extremely close games ('Sparrow Force' with Ralph McDonald and 'The Vital Hours' with Steve Anderson) and two fun games ('Preparing the way' with Will Willow and 'Hickory's Lickin' with Rob Loper).

I also had two learning games with people attending their first tournament. In 'Kempf at Melikhovo' I helped a player (who's played mainly one other player via VASL) manage their attack and tanks in the opening turns. He went on to beat me. My other game was a Sunday morning 'To the Neman' learning game which was cut short due to time.

Out of hundreds of tournament games, I've only had a couple bad experiences. One involved a friend who got a bit too competitive and a couple involved extremely slow play.

If you can go to a tournament, then go. Life is short. Don't let naysayers here keep you from going.

Paul