$500 1st prize! Battleground Championship, Cambridge, MA 4/30 & 5/1.

[andrewgr]

This is true.  So I'll put this out there:  If someone else is itching to run this (or something like this) in the northeast next year (and foot the prize $), don't hold back.  I will be thrilled to take off my judge hat and play!

Since I haven't been reading these forums, I didn't know about this event.  You might be forgiven for thinking that because I exchange e-mail with Chad once a week or so, he would have mentioned it, but that would just mean you don't know Chad very well.

In any event, if you decide to run this event again, it is probable that I would be willing to fly out and run it (where "run it" doesn't include logistics like getting the playing space, but does include generating pairings, adjudicating rules disputes, deciding on format, etc.).  This would probably be dependent on Chad playing or helping to administrate, since I'm not going to take vacation time and pay to fly to Boston without being able to visit him.

On the other hand, the probability that I would be willing to foot the bill for a cash prize approaches zero.

[ZiNOS]

After a long time of inactivity and too much real work..... where are the pics?
 

grats btw for a great job Kevin.

[Kevin]

grats btw for a great job Kevin.

Thanks!  Wish you could've been there!

where are the pics?

Dude, there are over 150 photos in the Session Reports section!  Go have a look!

[Kevin]

You know, it just occurred to me that we had a rather nice coincidence:  Chad promised that whoever won this tournament would be mentioned in the flavor text of a card in the next faction release.  Then he chose to make the next release a fantasy version of Ancient China...then the winner of the tournament is someone with an Asian name!

"Honorable Master Animator Bohan" sounds so much better than "Honorable Master Animator Jaime/Niko/Dave." 

[RushAss]

And it sounds even better than Dishonorable Apprentice Animator Ass.

[BubblePig]

And it sounds even better than Dishonorable Apprentice Animator Ass.

I was trying to make this scan more rhythmically by altering the word order, but that created its own problems.

Artificer BubblePig has a nice ring to it, but alas, I must wait for the next championship and a new faction. 

[Hannibal]

"Honorable Master Animator Bohan" sounds so much better than "Honorable Master Animator Jaime/Niko/Dave." 

Oh yes, I think Master Animator Bohan will be quoted commenting on the Jade Dragon.

And it sounds even better than Dishonorable Apprentice Animator Ass

We can mention you in the flavor text about the Miscasts...   

[Chad_YMG]

On the other hand, it's hard to tell what people thought of the 1200-point games.  Chad didn't like them, and they made Niko and Bohan squirm a bit, but others liked the variety they represented.  (That's also the only way you can get a high-point-density battle done in "tournament time.")

FWIW, I quite like 1200-point battles, but I strongly prefer them to be "real" battles with terrain rather than quick breaking points with small fields. 

(As an aside to Chad, I used to play in Bridge tournaments which were Swiss all the way.  However, Bridge tournaments were different from Battleground tournaments in 2 ways.  One was that they have a victory point system, so you could be in 6th place with one round to go but you could theoretically still win if you had an absolute blow-out last round.  The other is that Bridge has a whole "master point" system where points/ranks are awarded to people for status, and some amount of points would be awarded to the top half--which also meant that nearly everyone was in the running for something until the very end.  Battleground is several orders of magnitude too small a scene to even consider a master point system.)

The chess tournaments I played in were swiss and very few people dropped out even though you were certainly out of contention.  Indeed, our most common tournaments were one-game-per-night on four Wednesdays in a row, so people were showing up for two nights when they knew they couldn't win the main event.  Class prizes helped, but mainly people just liked playing serious (and rated) games.  Still, that's one gaming sub-culture; it may not apply to ours.

[Kevin]

Class prizes helped, but mainly people just liked playing serious (and rated) games.

Because Chess has ratings (much like Bridge), people could hope to improve their ratings in any given game.  From what I know of chess ratings, when you play vs. someone higher rated losing doesn't lower your rating much (though winning can raise it a lot).  So if you go to a tournament as one of the lower-rated players, lose 3 games to people with higher ratings, then win #4, you might come out ahead in points.  Hence you're still in the running for something at all times.

As I stated with bridge, the Battleground tournament scene is a couple orders of magnitude too small to have a ratings/point system.

FWIW, I quite like 1200-point battles, but I strongly prefer them to be "real" battles with terrain rather than quick breaking points with small fields. 

Well yes, but then you're talking an ultra-low-point-density battle.  By doing 1200 on a reduced map, it resulted in a point-density similar to that of a 2000-point game.

By the way, to replace the 1200-point game Saturday, I'm currently in the process of developing a way to do a 1500-point game on a full map which will have a point density comparable to a full game.  Details in a couple of months if it works out.  (If it doesn't, I might do a second 2000-point, open map, Breaking Point scenario, but do secret & simultaneous deployment to mix things up.)

[RushAss]

(If it doesn't, I might do a second 2000-point, open map, Breaking Point scenario, but do secret & simultaneous deployment to mix things up.)

YES

[Kevin]

Or, given that resounding endorsement, I'm thinking we can just go with 2000-point Breaking Point Secret-and-Simultaneous deployment.  Any other comments from the peanut gallery?


The Saturday schedule would tentatively go:

Game 1:  2000 points, Open Map, Breaking Point, Standard Deployment

Game 2:  1500 points, Terrain, Ticking Clock, Standard Deployment

Game 3:  2000 points, Open Map, Breaking Point, Secret-and-Simultaneous Deployment

Game 4:  2000 points, Terrain, Ticking Clock, Standard Deployment

Tie-breaker speed round (played by only a few people):  1150 points, Open Reduced Map, Breaking Point, Standard Deployment.

[Bloodaxe]

Are armies & lists set? Or can they be changed? If they are set/unchanged- I think its better. Then you cant tailor a list to your opponent. If lists are set/unchanging- you better come up with a good all-around list & its a great test of generalship & skill.
Ive played WH40k and WHFB (Warhammer/GW) tourneys like this and they work well.

[Kevin]

It's the same as this past year.  People build their armies each scenario.  Standard core & elite rules.  The one special(ish) rule is that mercenaries aren't allowed.

In my opinion, "tailoring a list to your opponent" is one of the most interesting, skill-intensive aspects of the game, and I see no reason to chuck it out the window.  With pre-set armies you could build an army with 9 little guys and draw a map with a large lake and better luck next year, chump. 

Of course, I strongly encourage others out there to put up some prizes and run tournaments with whatever rules they wish!

[Kevin]

By the way, there was one recent tournament which kinda sorta had pre-set armies.  Last year at Council of 5 Nations 11 of us played in a 3-game 1500-point open map tournament which was announced as pre-set armies.

In practice, Niko (the judge) abandoned that requirement, because people who lost a game would get really annoyed if they were not allowed to correct an error in army build.  (My own army remained the same all 3 games.)

This tournament also featured open maps and all games the same.  I've heard from multiple people that they really enjoyed the way the Championship Tournament mixed up the formats so that they weren't doing the exact same thing each time (and this tournament features up to 7 games rather than 3). 

Anyway, to make a fixed-army work, I'd have to do away with the variety which attracted people, and ignore the experience that we had with it, where under all the right circumstances someone with far more judging experience than I still chose to abandon the fixed-army rule.

[Bloodaxe]

Ok, thanks! I was just wondering.