Vince Meconi  - Aug 5, 2007 3:16 pm (#24916 Total: 24966)  
Flash GM Report for War At Sea

Andy Gardner of Fairfax, VA won the War At Sea championship plaque on
Friday, winning the crown for the 2nd time (he also won in 2002). Andy
finished 7-1-0 and defeated Darren Kilfara of Dunbar, East Lothian,
United Kingdom (6-2-0). Darren missed his chance to become the first
player to win Victory in the Pacific and War At Sea at the same WBC,
after winning VITP at the Rising Sun precon earlier in the week. Andy
has won both titles, but not in the same year. Andy finished 2nd in VITP
this year, so it's pretty clear who are the 2 top players in the
WAS/VITP game system! The final match could not have been closer;
Darren's Allies won the raw POC by 1, by the 2-POC bid put Andy's Axis
on top by 1! Third place went to first time playoff contender John
Elliott (Sunderland, MD, 5-1-0). John made the playoffs the hard way,
skipping the first round and then winning 4 in a row. The 4th and final
wood went to 3-time champ Bruce Monnin (Minster, OH, 4-3-0). 5th place
went to Jim Kramer (Wiconisco, PA, 5-1-0), a veteran contender making
his first playoff bid. Jim was the only player to go undefeated in the
Swiss rounds. The rest of the playoff participants were 6th, John Pack
(Parker, CO, 4-2-0), 7th, Pat Richardson (Warrenton, VA, 4-2-0), and
8th, Chuck Stapp (Freehold, NJ, 3-2-1). 

In the quarterfinals, Bruce Monnin defeated top seed Jim Kramer, Andy
Gardner bested Virginia neighbor Pat Richardson, Darren Kilfara stopped
Chuck Stapp, and John Elliott outscored John Pack. In the semifinals,
Darren Kilfara beat John Elliott and Andy Gardner sank Bruce Monnin. 

Andy Gardner added Best Allied Player to his championship wood, while
John Elliott took Best Axis Player honors. Rookie of the Year was Frank
Fischer of Wayside, NJ. 

Total entrants were 45 and 86 games were played, both just about last
year's levels. Play balance favored the Allies this year, with 50 Allied
wins to just 34 by the Axis. There were 2 tie games. Total bidding as
well as bidding for the Allies rose. Only 19 contests had no bid, while
67 featured Allied bids. For the first time in the history of War At Sea
at the WBC and Avaloncon, no player bid for the Axis. 

My thanks to Assistant GMs Bruce Monnin, John Sharp (who provided the
chess clocks), and Frank Cunliffe (who ran our demo). 

The newly created War At Sea Hall of Fame inducted its inaugural class:
Alan Applebaum, founding GM of the War At Sea tournament way back at the
1991 Avaloncon, plus Ray Freeman and Bruce Monnin, the only 3-time
winners of the War At Sea championship.


Ewan  - Aug 6, 2007 8:12 am (#24931 Total: 24966)  

This was probably my favourite WBC to date, despite the conspicuous
absence of first-place wood garnered; partly because of the extra length
added into my trip given the proximity of H'Con, but mostly because I
got to play an unusually-wide variety of games: Kremlin, Ingenious,
Britannia, TtA and two days of learning and playing Hannibal - all good
stuff. 

Commuting back to CT for the Police concert on Friday was not so much
fun, and a case of severely bad timing, but the concert itself was great
. 

The only real downside to the week came in my heat of TtA. One of my
opponents was having an unfortunate run, and I made the crack 'It's
blue, kill it!' as a creature died; at which point she was clearly
pretty stressed and broke down into tears, sobbing 'but it's my team
game and it's _so_ important.' 

Not sure it's possible to feel worse at the gaming table than watching
an opponent actually cry. So this is just to add a public apology to the
private one I offered at the time, if the straw that broke the
proverbial comment was my wisecrack: truly sorry. 

Other than that, just good folk and hard, friendly gaming. The Britannia
final was a classic: it was clear that two of the other three finalists,
both perennial contenders, had decided that I was not to be allowed to
repeat... unsurprisingly, that struggle meant that the new face at the
table strolled to a well-deserved win . Didn't matter - other than to my
team-mates; sorry, although watching Jason dress up as a baby seal next
year may be worth it - it was still a great week. Thanks, all. 


Brian Youse  - Aug 6, 2007 8:38 am (#24934 Total: 24966)  
"When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth." 	 

For MMP, WBC was about an average time this year. 

Most of our tournaments were before the vendor area opened up, so that
was nice. 

Our sales were roughly the same as last year, +/- a hundred bucks or so,
which was a little disappointing since we thought overall #'s were up. 

A Victory Lost won 3 CSRs and an IGGY! Huge positive! 

#s were down, I believe, in all our tournament games. Game length has
something to do with it, we believe, plus our scheduling was a little
off with many MMP games going on at the same time - so people who wished
to play in more than 1 were forced to choose. 

Waffle House at 3am is still tasty. 

Lapp's restaurant should burn to the ground and do us all a huge favor. 

Saw a skunk on the golf course at about 3:15am. Honking the car horn
made him run but not spray - darn. 

I didn't have to watch Belle and Blade's Kursk movie for 3+ days. I did
see more than enough Zulu Dawn to keep me happy for a while. 

So as you can see, many plusses, some minuses, add together = a good
time! 


Daniel Broh-Kahn - Aug 6, 2007 8:56 am (#24935 Total: 24966)  
GM of the otherwise uninteresting Tikal tournament 	 

Positive reaction as well

I too had a positive reaction from my 15th or 16th (in a row!)
WBC/AvalonCon, even though I had to work in the middle of it! Shudder.
More importantly, my son and nephew also loved it, and want to go back
again next year.... So there is hope for continuity! 

As usual, I have nothing but praise for the organizers, the GMs, the
food, facilities, etc, etc, but does anyone beside me note that if you
haven't won a game to advance, there really is not a lot to do on
Saturday afternoon or evening? (especially when compared to 9:00 am on
any morning) 

Thanks again for some great games, everyone! Tikal write up soon. 

Cheers,

Daniel


sysop  - Aug 6, 2007 11:04 am (#24938 Total: 24966)  
John Kranz] ConsimWorld.COM. Mark your calendars for CSW Expo..
.May 27-June 1, 2008 
	 
I'd like to thank Don Greenwood and prized staff for putting on a great
show. This was (embarrassed to admit) my first-ever WBC and it was well
worth the wait. A fantastic venue and it was great to say 'hi' to so
many during the event. Certainly an energizing experience with all the
gaming activity and buzz going on. Thanks also to those who took time
out from the gaming tables for the CSW seminar and CSR Awards
presentation.


Joshua Githens  - Aug 6, 2007 11:51 am (#24944 Total: 24966)  

2007 WBC

I was so happy to see all the famaliar people that I have become friends
with over the years. Even if it is just in passing in the hall, and we
don't play a game together, the friendships I have there are second to
none although I only see them for 5 days a year. 

I am always amazed though how the same groups of people tend to be
proficient at and qualify for the finals of the same games. I guess that
is just part of running with the same crowd. 

While everyone wants the convention to last all year. It is nice to have
something to look forward to every year. Not to mention that our bodies
would burn out after the first few weeks. Vampire like sleep patterns,
supermodel eating habits, we would never last. 

To a fantastic 2007 WBC and to many more in the future.

Josh Githens
Vote Githens '08 WBC Board


Justin Rice  - Aug 6, 2007 12:11 pm (#24946 Total: 24966)  
Now Playing: GCACW, VG: Civil War, 3DoG 	 

Sleep, at last ...

Man, what a fun week .... Some personal highlights: 

- Getting knocked back to reality in GCACW when Ed Beach dice-whipped me
and a couple of newcomers to the series handed out some humble pie! Made
me appreciate the second-place finish last year a little more. 

- The fishing at the campground was good. A pack of 98-cent hot dogs and
I had a catfish on the line in about five minutes. After getting whipped
in GCACW, I needed to prove that I was still smarter than all the fish,
so the late-night fishing was great. 

- Pick up games. A bunch of open gaming this year .... Jay Meyers and I
got Cedar Creek in on Tuesday, Six-player Here I Stand; the Wooden Ships
fleet action was fun, Settlers, Gringo, Twilight Struggle, some Euro
that I couldn't tell what it was called ... 

- The food at the Host wasn't bad. I've had worse meals that cost $7.50.

- I met some Dolans late Saturday night. What an adventure! 

- Late-night Pitch Car in Lampeter. All we were lacking was more beer. 

Had a great time - good to meet so many of ya'll. Anyone got an official
count on the number of days until 2008? 


Robert Flowers  - Aug 6, 2007 2:16 pm (#24958 Total: 24966)  

From the standpoint of running my tournament (El Grande), the scheduling
was much improved, and participation moved back up from a low last year
when it was conflicting with several similar events. 

I did notice that I found it harder on Friday and Saturday to fill my
schedule with things I liked, but I think part of that is that I'm just
not as good as I used to be, and thus didn't make it into many advanced
rounds. 

I also decided to take a serious run at Star Wars Queen's Gambit, which
eats up a lot of time, being a longish two player event. But, what a
blast! I was defeated in the semi final and Sean McCollough in the final
by some kid who seriously outdiced both of us as the Naboo player. I
can't remember his name, perhaps it was "anakin" and I just missed it. 

The best week of my year! 


Arthur Field  - Aug 6, 2007 3:14 pm (#24964 Total: 24966)  

Finally back

Saturday night Manifest Destiny 4.5 hour semi final Sunday morning
Manifest Destiny 4.5 hour final 

Drive like banshee to airport. 

Fly Harrisburg to Philadelphia. 7 pm board flight to GSP. Taxi out to
runway. 

11:45 pm return to gate in Philadelphia, thereby continuing the day from
hell. Paid $300 for each of two rooms for 4 hours at Airport Marriott to
avoid being arrested by TSA for loitering outside an airport when
Special Services sent us out to baggage claim to get our bags which were
to be retrieved from cancelled flight only to never get the bags and not
be able to re-enter airport since no boarding pass in hand. No food--all
places closed. No clothes--all places closed. No medicine--not allowed
to carry fluids through airport. All in bags. Child hysterical. 

Rooms ended up costing $600: $75/hour and didn't even get a massage! 

Back to airport. 

Back to GSP at noon just now. 21 hours to get from WBC to GSP by air. 

2 of 4 bags disappeared entirely. 

Haven't eaten or slept since Saturday. 

Scored Facts in 5. Winton Lemoine won. Eric Brosius second. 

Will report.

Must sleep.

Joel A Tamburo  - Aug 6, 2007 4:38 pm (#24968 Total: 25209)  
Learning each day how much I don't know 	 

Hi all!

Now THAT is the way to have a convention! 

WBC was tremendous. To my understanding, we had record high attendance
this year (and the gaming areas were indeed rather more crowded this
time around). The vast majority of people were very nice. 

Food wise the Host this year did much better. Having two lines instead
of one greatly reduced the crush at the food kiosks, and the food itself
was good. As to Lapp's , it is a bad place to eat and I would recommend
Ted file a complaint with the PA department of public health. On a
related note, perhaps we can have on the website a list of recommended
places to eat? 

On another note, every person in our group (we came up from IL) won
first place in an event this year (Galaxy, The Kaiser's Pirates, Apples
to Apples Jr and Ticket to Ride Jr). It made for a lively ride home. 

The seminars went better than expected. In particular from my poin t of
view, the Ethics in Gaming seminar (co-hosted by Kaarin Engelmann and
myself) drew 24 and had lively discussion. As we figured we would get
maybe 2 people, we were very pleasantly surprised. Also, several people
came up after the seminar and asked for an encore next year, so at WBC
2008 we will get Ethics in Gaming: The Sequel. 


Arthur Field  - Aug 6, 2007 10:11 pm (#24980 Total: 25209)  

Facts in Five GM report

FACTS IN 5 WBC 2007 REPORT 

43 people (if memory serves) turned up to play Facts in 5. Attendance
was bolstered by the improved time slot. Your GM guaranteed everyone an
on-time 1 hour finish, which was achieved even with a great deal of
humor and fun. 4 puzzles were played by all contestants. Each puzzle had
categories drawn from history, general knowledge, sports and a bit of
geography thrown in for good measure. 

The first puzzle categories were: Civil War Battles in Maryland or
Pennsylvania; Triple Crown winners; Famous fashion designers from USA,
France or Italy; Signers of the Articles of Confederation; and Heisman
Trophy Winners from 1960 on. These were played across the letters A, C,
G, S and W. Leonard Omolecki led the pack with a score of 15 out of a
possible 25. He was closely followed by Richard Irving and Winton
Lemoine with 14 each. 

Puzzle 2 sought Gilbert & Sullivan operettas; Men’s Olympic Alpine
skiing gold medalists; Italian cathedral cities; Gettysburg Generals and
Popular American magazines across G, M, P, R and S. English gamer Ed
Kendrick knew every G&S operetta, but didn’t know any American
magazines. Larry Lingle got all the generals, but none of the skiers.
Rod Lee and Rich Fetzer both scored 15, closely followed by Eric Brosius
and Winton Lemoine with 14 and 12 respectively. 

The high score dropped to 13 (Gordon Rodgers) for puzzle 3. Categories
were Queen albums; Major inhabited Caribbean islands; Olympic Gold Medal
figure skaters; Holy Roman Empire Imperial Free cities in 1792; and Tony
Award Best Musical winners over D, G, H, N and S. Many people did not
think of ‘Greatest Hits’ for Queen and Haiti is not an island.
Hispaniola is. 

The final puzzle had a bonus 6th category: Julie Andrews movies; Cities
in Thurn & Taxis game or Swiss cantons; Jethro Tull albums; Books of the
New Testament; First names of Gilmore Girl characters; and Images of
people on Sgt. Pepper album cover with letters A, L, M, P and T. Richard
Irving led the pack with a high score of 15 out of a possible 30. Once
again Winton came in tied for second with Rod Lee, Ted Simmons and Eric
Brosius. 

Total top scores for all 4 heats were: Lemoine 46; Brosius 45; Irving
44; Ted Simmons 42; Ted Drozd 42; Rodgers 40 and Ed Kendrick 37. Ted
Drozd had the most consistent scores (13, 10, 10, 9) while Roderick Lee
had the highest standard deviation scoring 11, 15, 5 and 13. Winton did
not ‘win’ a single round, but his two second place finishes and good
showings on the other puzzles amassed enough consistent right answers to
just edge fierce competitors Eric Brosius and Richard Irving. Rich took
third beating Ted Simmons on the 4th puzzle tie breaker. 

Many thanks to Kate Taillon, assistant GM, who helped me score all of
these at 1:30 AM after the Manifest Destiny semi-final. It was a great
experience getting to play in a final with her, Kevin Sudy, Harald
Henning and that other guy 


Eric Brosius - Aug 6, 2007 10:40 pm (#24981 Total: 25209)  

Facts in Five

Arthur, thanks for running the Facts in Five tournament. I had a blast
again this year! It may be easy for the players, but I'm sure it's a
huge amount of work to GM. (Actually, thinking about it, it's not all
that easy for the players, either...!) 

I had the pleasure of telling Winton Lemoine that he had won, after I
ran into you on Sunday morning and learned the results. He was thrilled
to have earned the right to bring the wood home in a tournament Randy
Cox assured me is an "honorary, legendary" Century event. 

I hope you manage to find a time slot in 2008 that will allow me to
continue my participation in Facts in Five. 

Maybe I'll even choose it as my team game... 


Rob Seulowitz  - Aug 6, 2007 11:34 pm (#24982 Total: 25209)  
Bitter, overly critical, and rarely clever, funny or constructive posts. 	 

Obscenely Long Doncon AAR

This year’s Doncon had two major themes for me: 

1. Math is Hard. This theme is self-explanatory. It was my mantra during
many games. 

2. The Weakest Link. Any game with 3 or more players has a pleasure
factor inversely proportional to the delta in experience levels between
the high and low amongst the sample set. In other words, one newbie can
throw the game out of whack. The more complex and subtle the game, the
greater the distance the whack is thrown. 

I’m working on a formal theory which I call The Seulowitz Theory of Weak
Force Result Acceleration. Here’s a sample: 

I had a number of conversations with GMs and Board members about this
phenomenon, and I have some ideas about how to reduce its impact, at
least in the games over which I have any influence as a GM or Asst GM.
Any GMs interested in the discussion can let me know and I’ll be happy
to set something up. 

Monday 

This year, the whole family – including Sam (aged 5) and Joe (aged 2) –
made the trip to Lancaster, and a wonderful time was had by all. Monday
was spent exhausting the kids at Dutch Wonderland and doing other
wholesome, outdoorsy things, knowing we would spend most of the rest of
the week indoors or in the pool. 

Having dispensed with family obligations for the day, I retired to the
soothing, dark hotel bar, where I hung out with Marty Sample, Wray
Ferrell and several others for the traditional Pre-Event Taunting
Rituals and some lite multiplayer fun. 

Tongiaki 

Goofy tile-placing game with Polynesian island-hopping as the setting.
An excellent warm-up for the main event: Just thoughtful enough to get
the graymatter working, but mixes well with beer and bad jokes. 

Galaxy 

My first try with this game, although I know TtA pretty well. Galaxy is
vastly superior while remaining light enough to play over drinks and
chit-chat. 

Box of Golf 

Andy Lewis introduced me to what is obviously the greatest, most
accurate and sophisticated golf simulation ever. By the fourth hole of a
three-player round, I was far ahead (emulating reality with a spooky
uncanniness), and I invited Andy to use the Lady’s Tee for the remainder
of the front 9. That was as far was we got before Andy broke his
metaphorical mashie niblick over his knee, paid me my $100 and retired
for the night.

All kidding aside, this is a spiffy and well-produced title that could
prove to be a gateway game for the golfer you know who’s wife would be
delighted to have him add another money- and time- draining hobby to his
life. 

continued... 


Rob Seulowitz - Aug 6, 2007 11:39 pm (#24983 Total: 25209) 
Bitter, overly critical, and rarely clever, funny or constructive posts. 	 

Part II

Tuesday 

Tuesday was down to business: I had a playtest and mulligan round to
manage. But I still found time to sneak in a game or two. 

CC: Ancients 

Dan Dolans I and II helped me while away the hours GM’ing Successors
with a pair of scenarios from this excellent game. I had heard good
things about it, and just a few games were enough to sell me on it. I
don’t normally buy two-player games these days, but this one has shot to
the top of my list. 

I later played a pickup game of one of the special Tourney scenarios
with a gentleman preparing for round 2 in Wheatland – the one where
Carthage gets 3 Elephants. We played it twice, switching sides, and in
both battles the Elephants pretty much ate the opposing army, virtually
unassisted. How did that turn out in the Tourney? 

Wednesday 

Wednesday meant round 2 of my own event, so I had only a little time to
spare for other games. 

Amun Re 

At an unbalanced table – three experienced players and two newbies – it
came down to which of us would benefit most from newby mistakes. That
turned out to be me. I love it when a plan comes together. 

See Theme 2 above. 

Successors 

I managed to get myself seated at a table for the second round of my own
event, only to have Dolan the Younger steal the game on turn 4 by
stealing Alex and the throne on his last card play. 

Thursday

A day of quick-hits in the Euro Ballroom.

Galaxy

Having cut my fangs on the game Monday, I sat in for a round of the
Tourney with my friend Craig Melton, with whom the GM kindly allowed me
to play. Sadly, the game got ugly early when a player committed the
rookie error of putting his Secret Bet on the same column as his only
visible bet. When that column was killed in round 1, he went a bit rigid
and the whole table’s tone shifted into low gear. I placed a cheerful
3rd and moved on with my life. 

Medici 

Fred (?), the Assistant GM, ran this table like a Vegas comic on speed,
but that was fine with me, and I had a pretty good time. I took the high
hand on round 1 but I had the 10 card and one empty hold, so I was
chasing everyone else for bonuses for the rest of the game. 4 of us
finished in a bunch about 20 points behind Fred, whose entertaining
banter more than made up for the loss. 

Ra 

Normally I don’t pick up rivers, but after round 1 I found myself with 5
and no one else with more than 3. So I just kept picking them up cheap,
letting the others outbid themselves for Pharaohs and Monuments. I won
by about 20 points. 

Republic of Rome 

My annual descent into the viper’s den was typical of my more recent
games: Kevin Barry destroyed me in about three turns, and I spent the
rest of the game with my Faction out in the cold. (GM Sean Larsen calls
players with insignificant votes “Political Theorists.”) Kevin survived
back-to-back Assassination attempts and was rescued from a third by the
End of Game card for the win. I took his decision to take me out first
as a sign of respect. Don’t disillusion me. 

Friday 

After my only decent night’s sleep of the week, I returned to headier
gaming. 

Imperial 

I showed up to support this game, even though the basic start makes it
highly luck-driven. And I did, in fact, get stiffed on the deal: The
player on my left got Austria (meaning I would be the last to see the
Investor card other than him), he also had control of Germany (the
undealt card left no senior investor), and I was dealt Russia. To make
matters worse, two of the newbies at the table played as though it were
a wargame, totally over-bulding troops and over-investing in their
starting positions. This left the two players that dominated Austria and
Italy to feed each other, and they finished 1st and 2nd a mere point
apart. However, I made the best of it, referring to the ultimate winner
as “The nicest baby-eating ogre I’d ever met,” and spent some time
afterward trying to show the newbies how to improve their game. 

Kremlin 

Another high-point for me, I have never played a game of Kremlin that
wasn’t a blast (then again, I’ve never played against Pete “Baby
Crusher” Stein). This year was no exception: a great table of cheerful
Stalinists, playing with the proper spirit of gleeful mayhem. 

On the final turn, I had a 95-year old KGB director who had already
served me pretty well, and control of the Ideology Minister (88 with 2
hits) and 9 unplaced points on a young Minister, on whom other players
had 5 and 4 markers. I also had 1 point on card Z, sitting in the Sports
Ministry rather than occupying his usual dacha in Siberia. The Party
Chief, Foreign and Defence Ministers were all controlled by one player,
who had 1 successful wave and was in the lead. Only 2 “people” remained
to join the politburo should the Candidates be exhausted. 

I was hoping to take one low-odds shot at the Chief before retiring,
when I was hit by a first purge card instructing me to take out the
Minister on whom I had the 9 undeclared points. I was about to decline
when Paul (?) asked me, “If you could make a second purge attempt, who
would it be?” When I unhesitatingly answered that the Party Chief had
used a distinctly Capitalist wave in the Parade, he obliged me by
playing the card that strips 5 years off, restoring my KGB Director to a
vigorous, youthful 90. 

Well, long story short, 6 Purges, 1 Retirement Party and 1 Funeral
later, there are two Ministers left in the entire politburo, and not
enough survivors to fill all the roles. The Minister I don’t control
must nominate Z for the Chair. No one can oppose. 

“Well, that was fun!” I was thinking, sure that one of the veterans
would reveal their Influence on Z. But no one had a single point! I and
I alone owned him! 

I was giddy about that game for hours afterwards. 

Saturday 

The Successors Final concluded at 2:30 AM, and even after getting to bed
around 3:15, sleep was not to be had. I dragged myself around the vendor
area (I’m unclear what the “Ilsa” film series has to do with board
gaming) in the late morning and finally roused myself for an afternoon
of fun.

Imperial

The second round was no kinder than the first, again sitting to
Austria’s right, this time dealt Germany. I shrugged off the idea of
winning and spent the early rounds teaching the inexperienced players,
ensuring that they understood their action options, the timing of the
Investor card, and the need to diversify investments. I was quite
pleased that the two newest players finished very well (one of them
won!). 

Imperial (Advanced) 

I got a chance to play a half of a game with some experienced players
using the No Investor Card option – wow! It was a completely different
game, with much more interesting strategic decisions. We only got about
half-way through, but it was clear that the game demands much more
patience and careful planning to avoid being shut out of a nation, and
the risk-rewards for aggressive military actions play out totally
differently. I don’t think this option will ever be part of the Doncon
event, but once you know the game well, I encourage you to try it a few
times. 

Kremlin (Semi-Final) 

My only advancement for the week, I had the misfortune to be seated with
Ewan (one of the Cambridge Reds, no doubt). I can only say that Pete
Stein is not the only one to win a game on the back of a
fourteen-year-old prodigy. 

Guatemala Cafe 

Sat down in Wheatland to play a few hands of this offbeat
placing/blocking game with the affable and much beloved Mark Giddings,
accompanied (as he always is) by his attorney, but it wasn’t until a
fourth player who knew the game a little arrived that we finally figured
out we were playing it wrong. It’s a fine little coffee-house game with
an appropriate theme, although the production requires more real-estate
than any Starbucks nook will provide. 

Late Night Nonsense 

I decided to skip the Saturday Night running of Circus Max since there
appeared to be enough sweat and testosterone in the room for a hundred
Michael Bay movies. 

Instead, I visited the RoR Final just in time to see it dissolve into
another win for the game as time expired. Sean, Kevin, Chase Bramwell
and myself had a long chat about what needs to be done to make this a
more satisfying tournament game. With the Valley Games announcement that
a reprint is on the way, we are hopeful that we can bring some
constructive ideas to the table that might actually make it into print. 

The survivors of Rome broke out a series of goofy games which we played
in halting fashion until we got bored or confused and moved on to
something else. The Skippy’s Revenge card game series from Z-Man is
always good to get things started, and our round had an atypical quick
ending. So we stumbled through Order of the Stick for a while until we
decided it was too late for a 3 hour game. That looks like a lot of fun
for the right crowd, and has a Fast Start guide in “Graphic Novel”
format. We closed out with Politics as Usual, which is not as much fun
as it looks, at least not with 7 players when it seems that the same
cards come out every turn. 

And then it was a few hours of sleep before the final game of the
tourney, “Pack 25 cubic feet of crap into a 20 cubic foot space.” I took
home no trophies (other than my wife and kids), I will not be getting
any nominations for GM of the Year, and the likelihood of my getting a
Sportsmanship Award is slightly below Pete Stein’s.

But I don’t play for prizes. I play for the triumphant sound of the last
breath of hope escaping from my crushed opponent’s battered body. 

Thanks again to Don and the Board, especially Kaarin “Best Board Member
Ever” Engelmann and Keith “Guy in the Purple Hat” Levy. These folks work
hard so we can have fun. 


Darren Kilfara  - Aug 7, 2007 6:46 am (#24985 Total: 25209)  
Monty Panesar! 	 

>2. The Weakest Link. Any game with 3 or more players has a pleasure
factor inversely proportional to the delta in experience levels between
the high and low amongst the sample set. In other words, one newbie can
throw the game out of whack. The more complex and subtle the game, the
greater the distance the whack is thrown. 

I had a really great convention, but this maxim was proven to me in what
was by far my worst experience of the week. I entered the two-player TNW
tournament and got drawn into a three-player game with a young kid who
won the roll to pick sides first and chose Austria-Russia. I had the low
roll and thereby got assigned Britain, which meant for the rest of the
game I had to choose between a) giving strongly-worded advice in such a
way as to make the French player feel like he wasn't facing two separate
players, and b) keeping my mouth shut and watching my victory chances
disappear. In the end, France focused on me and had the lead after T1,
at which point I didn't burn a card on the peace roll, and thankfully
France rolled a "6" to end the game, thereby saving me much agony. Not
fun. Thankfully I had a rather better experience in my one five-player
game of TNW the following night, but even there it was clear that the
inexperienced French players at my table held a lot of sway over who
would actually win the game among the others simply by the choices he
made. In general, I think I'll now be firmly in the two-player camp for
wargaming going forward - no TNW, no HIS, no other games where my sense
of enjoyment is likely to be a crapshoot dependent upon the quality of
my opponents or the side I get chosen at the start. 

Apart from that, though, I had a really enjoyable five-player game of
Shogun (in which I got to meet the lovely and talented Kaarin, among
others), and my two-player experiences were really great. 'Twas great to
win at VITP and come in second at WAS; I didn't mind losing in the
second round of TS, on account of my schedule; and I got in a nice
pick-up game of EotS against Scott de Brestian, one of my regular online
sparring partners who I'd never hitherto met in person, and another
quick round of Pitchcar. I certainly hope to make it back in the near
future! 

Cheers, Darren


Gregory Schmittgens - Aug 7, 2007 8:27 am (#24986 Total: 25209)  

FWIW -

TNW 2 player is one event I specifically avoid: 

1) ever since the year the GM changed the format from the announced 1812
scenario to the campaign after I had signed up 

2) because it may be 2 player TNW or 3 player TNW unexpectedly - GM's
choice 

But what can you do 


Arthur Field  - Aug 7, 2007 9:06 am (#24989 Total: 25209)  

Seul is correct

The whack job factor was ridiculous this year and I predict it will become far worse.

My examples:

1) Caylus semi-final. The GM took a 3rd place finisher (maybe 2nd place,
we never got a straight answer from the woman) who asserted she had only
played the game twice ever into the semi-final to make it a 4 player
game. It was hell. She moved the 'pill' 2 paces forward every turn
theatrically announcing it was her 'signature move'. Huh? She did this
even when her closest piece was more than 5 back from it and the leader
had 3 (!) pieces within 3 spaces back and could have been significantly
hurt by a reverse move. She went first twice and did not go on the gold
mine. He went second and did and picked up the gold he needed to
complete the huge 25 point building to ensure the win. I kept quiet the
first time, (yes I did!) but the second time I asked her why she hadn't
gone on the gold (it is 3 VP automatically). "She said she didn't like
gold. Why should she?" I opined that it was 3VP for her, and a loss of
25 VP to him. She said she doesn't see the point of looking at what
other people are doing in a game because it isn't fair to them. She
turned a 2.25 hour game into over 3 hours. I came in 2nd, Andy went on
to win by at least 20, not that he didn't deserve it. He did. And that
is only a small part of what she did the entire game. Even Ann Norton
was amazed at what was happening, and Ann tends to be a very calm
person. 

2) Amun Re. The first player, who is a nice guy, took (are you ready for
this?) 6 minutes to make the opening bid on one of 4 tiles. The GM had
to caution us 3 times for slow play. 

3) The very same player turned a 2 hour Tikal game into what would have
become a 3.5 hour Tikal game. It took us 1:43 to reach the 2nd volcano,
which usually happens in the first 30 to 40 minutes. At one point, he
took 4 full minutes to decide whether to bid, then another 3 full
minutes to pick the tile he won and then 7 more before he laid it. That
is 14 minutes for 1 tile early in the game. And, I had told them I had
to go GM Facts in 5 without fail in the next round. The GM stopped the
game at this point. Tikal is a game won or lost in the last turn. Good
players play for the end, not the middle. Agony. 

4) Puerto Rico is notorious for this problem. My first game the player
on my right simply did things in which he had little to no interest
giving points to the player on my left. I came in 2nd. 

5) Tikal semi. The player on my left told us the entire game how smart
he is. He is a math teacher he said. (I kept my mouth shut about that
degree I have.) The winner of our heat beat Greg Thatcher and me since
the smart player never did anything to balance the game. Winner 127,
Greg 102, me 101, smart guy 93, if memory serves. Totally unbalanced. 

6) Manifest semi: new guy in game. Played a couple times. Last turn he
plays Trustbuster against the guy in last place by 15 points. I asked
him why since this was essentially a rude thing to do that benefitted
him not at all and hurt Ted immensely. He didn't know why. Now, hit the
leader sure. But the guy who is going to end 20 behind the leader, why? 

More and more examples abound. The result of which is I made it only
into 2 finals. I saw a huge number of newbies in semis who didn't know
the game at all but got there because they played at a table of newbies
and one of them won. Most of these people had never been to WBC before.
They whacked up the semi really badly. 

Irony factor: most of the time I kept quiet and these people didn't know
me and weren't out to 'get me'. Often, they hurt themselves and the
other players more, but threw the game to the winner without knowing
they were doing so. I don't like the kingmaker factor, but it happens.
This was not that. This was just poor play. 

Solution in next post.


Arthur Field  - Aug 7, 2007 9:23 am (#24994 Total: 25210)  

I've proposed this before

Yes, I know we should all be egalitarian, but I'm not. Sorry.

There needs to be 2 divisions: Novice and Advanced.

Sports have this. Dancing has this. Skiing has this. Drum corps has
this. Equestrian has this. Why don't we? 

As the WBC grows, it will suffer from logistics and whack terribly.
Puerto Rico is up to 4 heats, need to win several, (even 2 only tied you
for a bye this year and there was a roll off to get to the semis); play
in a 1/4 final with loads of whack factor, play in a semi with much
whach factor, etc., etc. We are talking about having to play 4 heats (3
minimum) plus a 1/4 and 1/2 and final for one game. Is it worth it? 

I played in about 8 semis and only advanced in 2 because of the whack
factor. It wasn't my poor play. I did everything I could. The finals
were different. Mostly excellent players in both of them (8 of 9). In
Auction semi the player with the most cash (at least twice everyone
else) didn't bother to buy the buyers card the other player clearly
needed to win the game immediately. He said he was waiting for another
card. Duh? The game ends now! When are you going to get another card?
The winner even told us he needed the buyers card to win immediately! 

Have a novice level and an advanced level. You protect the novices that
way and get them some experience. You must have played at least 3 years
to enter the advanced level or have been in 2 semis or been in 1 final.
This is egalitarian. If you played for 3 years you at least know many of
the rules. If you won into the semis twice, at least it is less likely
to have been a fluke. If you won a semi, you probably can play
reasonably well. 

OK, not for every game, but for those over 32 entries, I think it's a
good idea. The two games play simultaneously so it doesn't add any
burden to the logistics or the GM. Same number of players, same table
space. Only give 2 plaques in novice round. Will cost about $250 more in
plaques. 

There is no other way to reduce whack factor because I saw several B
level and even A level games that had players who had NEVER played the
game and did not attend the demo and did not read the rules. I played in
2 of them and it was really bad. 

And, I don't say this because I want to win. I would love to play
Kingmaker once, but I won't. No way I am going into that shark pit
without ever having played the game at a tournament to know how to play.
I would much prefer a novice round. (Not that it gets 32 players, but
maybe it would if there were a novice level.) 

JMHO


Andy Lewis  - Aug 7, 2007 9:44 am (#24999 Total: 25210)  
Sports Game Junkie, Enjoy the Games! 	 

Sorry Arthur, I can sympathize with your blight but I don't think your
suggested solution will solve anything. Let me give you three examples
of where it breaks down: 

1) I play in a tourney three years in a row at WBC so I qualify for
being the advanced level. Cool. Problem is that I only play the game at
WBC so I wouldn't necessarily say I'm an advanced player and could
certainly do a bonehead move. 

2) A first time CABS attendee - they'd have to play in the novice
division but could likely be one of the top players in the tourney as
they get to play 2 times a month against some of the strongest
competition out there unless you think Mullet and Reiff are pansies 

3) Someone from the juniors ranks steps up - as we've seen repeatedly,
we have quite afew strong players who are succesful in their first
attempts at the adult level because they are strong gamers just young.
Formula Motor Racing has now been won twice in the last 4 years by
players who would only be considered novice in your system because they
came from the juniors ranks (the year before or still qualify as such). 

Also, slow play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with someone
being a novice. There are plenty of strong players in events that are
slow. I think some of those players use slow play as a tactic and could
play as well faster if they thought it would benefit them. 


Darren Kilfara  - Aug 7, 2007 9:48 am (#25002 Total: 25210)  
Monty Panesar! 	 

>No solution necessary as they paid their entry fees like everyone else
- who are you to judge what style of game they should play? 

I don't think Arthur's solution is practical, but I wouldn't mind seeing
a fourth category of event for certain multiplayer games: namely, not
only do you need to be very familiar with the rules, you need to be
proficient at actually playing the game, i.e. newbies need not apply to
participate. Maybe a game shouldn't be eligible for this fourth
categorisation in back-to-back years, but it should be possible for an
advanced gamer to get advanced competition (esp. in multiplayer games
where the gaming fun can be ruined through no fault of one's own) in a
fair proportion of events. "WBC" stands for "World Boardgaming
Championships", and competitive play is supposed to be paramount; if
you're not willing or able to be competitive, that seems like a problem
to me. 


Randy Cox  - Aug 7, 2007 9:49 am (#25004 Total: 25210)  
"...war in Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. 
We would have been forced to rule Iraq...Had we gone the invasion route, 
the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." 
- George Bush [Sr.], 1998 	 

>There needs to be 2 divisions: Novice and Advanced. 

>As the WBC grows, it will suffer from logistics and whack terribly...We
are talking about having to play 4 heats (3 minimum) plus a 1/4 and 1/2
and final for one game. Is it worth it? 

That's the key question. I bet it's worth it to all those novices that
you detest playing with. They're (usually) there to have fun and that's
what they're doing. Even the woman who plays her own game without regard
to other players' positions (which I half agree with, by the way, as
it's the only way to avoid being seen as an intentional kingmaker). 

You're also asking for a boatload of new paper shuffling. Let me see,
which of these players have been in three prior events or two semis or
at least one championship game? Nope, he skipped four years so do his
two early appearances count? Just too difficult to deal with. Plus, it's
segregationist, and that's always bad. 

If you really don't like the results, lobby to make the games in
question true Round Robin or Swiss events where the sheer number of
games played will weed out the novices. You can turn a 120-player MESE
event into a 35 player Swiss event quickly, but you'll have the 'expert
level' gaming you desire. 

As long as WBC is to be a Mecca for gamers (which, sad for you, includes
casual gamers), you will have to tolerate what you may think of as
"sub-optimal" play. But remember, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
To me, "sub-optimal" play means that you took 60 seconds to move when
you could have taken 20. To hell with whether those 40 seconds would
have made for a strategically better move. My "optimal" goal is to
finish the game fast and not be in agony. All else is gravy. 


Ewan  - Aug 7, 2007 10:40 am (#25018 Total: 25210)  

>Rob: 2. The Weakest Link. Any game with 3 or more players has a
pleasure factor inversely proportional to the delta in experience levels
between the high and low amongst the sample set. In other words, one
newbie can throw the game out of whack. The more complex and subtle the
game, the greater the distance the whack is thrown. 

Yes, but. For some games, where turn order is especially important and
there’s relatively little direct player interaction, I’m willing to
believe that this may be irreperable. For others - Britannia is an
excellent example - the more experienced/expert folks can generally
balance out the actions of others. 

>Arthur: The whack job factor was ridiculous this year and I predict it
will become far worse. 

>Barcafer: I too ran into several occassions of this type of play, but
it is the nature of multiplayer games. I still find them infinately more
interesting than two player games and am more than happy to deal with a
few strange moves to enjoy all the brilliant ones you get to see. 

My own experience has been that cluelessness or inexperience is rarely
an issue - the person is friendly and smart, albeit learning, and often
good enough at gaming in general to make adequate if not optimal plays.
The one game of AoR I played this year featured myself and Bill
Crenshaw, both candidates for sharkdom; David Hood, an excellent player;
and two folks new to the con of whom one had only played once or twice.
Both of the latter had good winning chances. Conversely, some folks -
and in too many games this is of course where I come in - could play a
given game several hundred times yet never have a shot. 

So I think that Arthur - and others - are just going to have to suffer
those slings and arrows. Frankly, being hosed by the random chance of
another’s failure to realise consequences is less vexing to me than
sitting down and being told that the other players have decided you’re
not going to win regardless; and the inevitable rancor of asymmetrical
perception of position too often becomes heated. One of the main reasons
I took up WaS was to have a two-player game, where the only person other
than me in the game is the one I’m *trying* to kill, and that’s
understood! Which brings me to the ‘interest’ point above - I agree, I
think; but in some cases - AoR being the lead example for me - the costs
are becoming too high. 

[On occasion, it's possible to take enough pleasure in the fact that you
know - or at least believe - that you played well. But it's tough ] 

>Try Dune. We love fresh meat. 

If this is serious, I’m more than willing; I love the setting and the
game looks like fun. Plus now I get to blame my idiotic play on you . 

Finally: the way to have a tournament with the folks you desire, and
only those, is to hold an invitational. I eagerly await the first annual
Greenville Tikal extravaganza and synchronised baton usage contest… 


Rob Seulowitz  - Aug 7, 2007 10:46 am (#25019 Total: 25210)  
Bitter, overly critical, and rarely clever, funny or constructive posts. 	 

Having provoked the discussion...

I really hate to admit that Arthur and I are in agreement, but - at
least in principle - we are. 

I don't think that two divisions are practical for the larger events -
there, you simply have to trust that multiple rounds will weed out those
that play badly. In the case of the Caylus incident, that GM may want to
review his advancement criteria. 

However, my event is small, but the game itself is sublte, complex and
finely tooled so that all players must understand their options fully. 

What I'm concerned about isn't who wins, it's the quality of the
experience of the players who make a commitment every year to support
this game. If they continue to struggle with confused newbies every year
making the game a chore, they will eventually decide there are better
ways to spend their time. 

The fact is, we already classify events as "Experienced Only" - and we
need to find a way to enforce that in such a way that we don't drive off
people who want to learn the game. 

Right now, I'm working on a bracketing system, awarding points to
players for previous attendance over the previous 3 years (2 points if
you finished in the top 6, 1 point for having played at all). 3 points
makes you bracket A, 1 or 2 bracket B, and 0 is bracket C. As will be
matched up with As, Cs with other Cs with Bs distributed amongst the two
as needed/possible. (GM will fill in at C tables if required.) 

Since it is officially an Advanced game, I have no problem telling Cs
they can't qualify to advance unless they play again (any C who plays in
the Mulligan round and then again the next day automatically graduates
to a B ). 

HOWEVER, an ALTERNATE PRIZE or set of prizes will be given to the Cs -
such as a copy of the game to the best performance by a C, or some other
incentive to come back the next year. 

Another possibility is to award bonus points to the game winner equal to
the bracket values of the opponents beaten - that may be the best way to
reward a quality win. 

Again, I have a small event (<24 people in 4 player games), and
advancing non-winners to a Final or even Semi-Final game makes no sense
to me based on the game's structure (a very good player can often finish
in last place if they lose one big battle in the final turn, but that
doesn't reflect that they had dominated the game for the first 3 turns).
I'd rather have a better system for ranking and advancing winners, not
for ranking alternates. 

This idea may contravene official BPA policies, but if so, those
policies may need some revision. 

And to reiterate: I feel it is my duty as a GM to encourage players to
learn the game, and if that means sitting with a newbie table every
round and coaching them through the game, then so be it. I've gotten my
share of plaques. They're very efficient dust collection devices. I'd
rather make new friends. (Those, obviously, I need rather desperately,
yes?) 

Andy Lewis  - Aug 7, 2007 12:10 pm (#25040 Total: 25210)  
ports Game Junkie, Enjoy the Games! 	 

Okay, let me throw an interesting wrench into this discussion. I played
in the Gangsters tournament this year. What should I be classified as? I
played in the 1992 and 1993 Gangsters tournaments. I was a finalist in
1993. I don't think that I've played the game since that tournament
including no more practice for playing this year than reading the rules
again. At the level of that the competition has gotten to in this event
I would have said novice or shark bait would have been appropriate. 

FWIW, the game I was in, involved a newbie to my left so no joy for me,
Pat Richardson (6th in 2006), and Barry Shutt. John Pack asked that
everyone put their experience with the game on the scoresheet so
everyone knows. I made it clear that it had been a while since I'd
played but I had done well then so I did a full disclosure. It was a
nice group of people to play with that were good players - no major
bonehead moves. I managed to win after several very tense turns as they
all tried to stop me. 


Randy Cox  - Aug 7, 2007 2:25 pm (#25051 Total: 25211)  
"...war in Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. 
We would have been forced to rule Iraq...Had we gone the invasion route, 
the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - 
George Bush [Sr.], 1998 
	 
No one has mentioned another hazard with segregation--sandbaggers.
People who haven't scored laurels for a particular event in the past but
are damn fine players could say they're novices just to win easy wood
(if that's their desire). Or, maybe they play with a really good game
group and always lose, so they figure they really are novices. They sign
up as such and blow away the competition, not realizing that they were
certainly good enough to compete (and maybe win) the Big Boys Division. 

No, segregating the groups is just not a good idea at all. Let the
Darwinian process rule. If the tournaments one plays in are not Swiss
competitions with enough rounds to determine "qualified" winners, then
just learn to live with that fact. If the events are so short that one
can play in 15 different tournaments, then just realize that you will
lose some that you shouldn't have due to the "whack factor," but because
the event you're upset about is so short, you have time to win a
different "high whack factor" event. Everything works if you let it. 


Joshua Githens  - Aug 7, 2007 4:07 pm (#25065 Total: 25211)  

Games Tournament Levels

The A/B/C leveling is virtually never enforced. In 2006 I was in an A
Locked Event (no naming) The GM sat a player at our table whom he freely
admitted just shown the game to, and gave a brief overview. In this
game, which lasted for nearly 8 hours, well over the time scheduled,
anyone not famaliar with the complexity of card interaction and
political diplomacy in the game contorts the entire affair. I played
without raising a fuss, but it definately made the game a new monster
that should have never occured. 

As for the Experienced v. Novice catergories, perhaps packaging it in a
positive light will better be accpted. Those who are proficient v. those
that are new/learning. No need to publish the brackets, the GM can just
handle it silently if they choose. 

I felt that the Settlers tournament utilized this method to a degree.
1st round open seating, just get playing there were 132 entrants after
all. Round 2 mixed 1-winners and 3-non winners, round 3 had 2-game
winners paired with non 2 game winners. Points were awarded for each
place and I felt like the semis and finals represented a true picture of
the better players for that day. 

Blending the catagories seems effective and doesn't create classes and
labels. Heck if I can't beat a new person for whatever reason, then I
don't deserve to win. balanced, unbalanced fair or unfair, sometimes the
draw, dice roll, seating, opponets just go against you. 

In the Slapshot semis I was dealt: 1,1,1,2,3,5-Goalie. Only to be
improved via bruisers to 1,1,1,2,1,0-Goalie. Clearly not a game I was
meant to win. 

Joshua Githens
WBC BoD Canidate '08


Darren Kilfara  - Aug 7, 2007 4:29 pm (#25066 Total: 25211)  
onty Panesar! 	 

The key point for me is that a tiering approach, or at least the
restriction of several events to a new category ("for advanced players
only"), would increase the amount of *fun* for everyone, independent of
the competitive angle. Experts wouldn't feel that their multiplayer
games were being ruined by newbies; newbies wouldn't feel that they were
getting in the way of the self-appointed experts. Intermediate-level
players could pick their gaming audience as appropriate. 

>Hck if I can't beat a new person for whatever reason, then I don't
deserve to win. 

For me, this is completely true in a two-player setting or a multiplayer
game where each player mostly controls his or her own destiny. But if
"for whatever reason" can possibly include another player's poor play, I
don't see how it's not a worthy goal to try and eliminate that element
from the equation. I described a scenario (in TNW) above where my game
was basically destined to be an unhappy experience for me - win or lose
- from the moment the pairings were drawn. There are plenty of games
that inexperienced players can enjoy to the full at the convention
without irritating anyone - after all, the worst you can do in a
two-player game is lose, with your opponent advancing and you hopefully
learning something. But I really don't think it's fair for the other
entrants in a multiplayer tournament for a novice to get involved where
his/her mistakes can decide the outcome for or against someone else. I'm
actually rather annoyed that someone would enter a tournament under such
circumstances; I thought about possibly playing HIS or Wellington at the
tournament, but in the end I felt I didn't know either game well enough,
and I didn't want to be a burden on the other players. Why don't more
inexperienced players feel this way? And do we really want to increase
attendance at the convention if it is going to lead to a lower quality
of play, and thereby increase the randomness of our multiplayer
tournament winners? 

Cheers, Darren


David desJardins - Aug 7, 2007 4:46 pm (#25067 Total: 25211)  
Burlingame CA 	 

The key point for me is that a tiering approach, or at least the
restriction of several events to a new category ("for advanced players
only"), would increase the amount of *fun* for everyone 

I think trying to separate "novice" and "expert" sections would make
almost everyone less happy. "Experts" will be unhappy because some of
the people in their games won't play "well enough", and they will feel
those people should be in the novice sections. Those people, in turn,
will be embarrassed and offended by the criticism. "Novices" will be
unhappy because some of the people in their games will play "too well",
and they will feel those people should be in the expert sections. And
those people, too, will feel embarrassed and offended in the criticism. 

It seems truly a gold mine of hurt feelings. 

I described a scenario (in TNW) above where my game was basically
destined to be an unhappy experience for me - win or lose - from the
moment the pairings were drawn. 

Then that's your fault for signing up. I would agree with everyone who
says that the "2-player tournament" should only have 2-player games. The
GM, is in my opinion, abusing his discretion in running it with 3-player
games. But the format is not a secret. If you don't like it, don't play.

I'm actually rather annoyed that someone would enter a tournament under
such circumstances; I thought about possibly playing HIS or Wellington
at the tournament, but in the end I felt I didn't know either game well
enough, and I didn't want to be a burden on the other players. Why don't
more inexperienced players feel this way? 

Because most players don't feel this way. Most players want to attract
more people into their favorite games, and the only way people get to be
experienced is by starting out inexperienced. So most people are
perfectly happy with the fact that qualifying rounds may have some weak
players. If you are good, then you can win anyway, and the format will
generally give you multiple chances. The format should then qualify only
reasonably talented players to the championship rounds, and if the GM is
qualifying too many players, then that is the problem. Not that people
are entering when they don't meet your standards. 


Bruce Reiff  - Aug 7, 2007 6:48 pm (#25082 Total: 25211)  
Pete Stein - Moves to Columbus in 2005. 0 plaques in '05, 1 in '06 & 2 in '07. 
Price increase coming up in CABS training dept. 
	 
Expert vs Novice - sometimes it's the players fault

First off, while I understand Arthur's point there is no way that two
seperate divisions would be workable. We tried it several years ago for
ASL and it was a failure. For the reasons that several of you mentioned
it just won't work - as a GM, I wouldn't want to deal with it, but we
clearly mark our events A B & C and I GM them all. The players need to
police themselves a bit. If you've played once and it's an A event -
don't play it. If it's a B and you've played it once, welcome and tough
crap to those who get Kuhnered (the official CABBIE term for a whack
job). Been there, done that. 

Let me relate a true story from this year where I watched a "famous WBC
personality" drop the ball. 

I was siting near the ********* GM about 15 minutes before the start of
the event. It's clearly marked as an A event. This "famous WBC
personality" comes up to the GM and asks to be taught how to play. Both
I and the GM point out it's an A rated event. He's says (I'm
paraprhasing here) that it's a Euro, how hard can it be. The GM knows
this "famous WBC personality" and that he is friends with the powers
that be and rather than raise a stink, proceeds to teach him the game. I
have no idea if he ruined the game or not (I do know that he lost) but I
do know he should have had enough sense to take the polite hint he was
given. 

And I know what Don's response will be - the GM should have said no, but
the personality of this person didn't allow for an easy no and I don't
blame the GM. I blame this person for being rude, imho. 

So, in summary - if you're a newbie in a particular game, use some
common sense. If you're Arthur - man up and learn Football Strategy. Any
kuhner play directly benefits you! 


Darren Kilfara - Aug 8, 2007 6:24 am (#25099 Total: 25211) 
Monty Panesar! 	 

>Personally, my gaming time is too valuable to have it wasted.
Therefore, I would not attend an event unless I was reasonably confident
that I was going to get to play a quality game. I would rather go 0-6 in
well played games than 6-0 in games decided by random or inept play. 

My thoughts exactly. The irony is that some people here think this
viewpoint is selfish, that the experts are trying to squeeze the novices
out of the way for their own betterment. In fact, I think it's rather
more selfish for a beginner to enter an event he has no business
entering, because he can ruin the gaming experience for players other
than himself. 

It's very obvious that there are two types of gamers who attend the
WBCs: those who come to play games, and those who come to play
competitive games. The discussion here reflects these viewpoints, the
difference being IMHO that most of the competitive gamers can see and
understand both viewpoints, whereas most of the non-competitive gamers
can't see why the competitive types are getting all riled up. ("It's
just a game," etc.) Personally, I don't play games simply for the sake
of playing them - I play them to be challenged and stimulated, and yes,
to try to win. I enjoy the social aspects of them, and I enjoy
experiencing different types of games, but if you remove the competitive
element from the equation, the experience is no different from many
other activities I might undertake to pass the time. 

Thing is, in a two-player game, both types of gamers can happily enough
co-exist. The non-competitive gamer can enjoy the experience while
losing, while the competitive gamer may not enjoy the lack of challenge
in beating up a newbie, but he knows that by doing so he'll progress to
the next round, where eventually the competition will catch up with him.
For this reason, I don't see any reason why a two-player game needs to
have a "novice" track and an "expert" track; I don't know the specifics
of what happened when ASL went down this road, but I can see why it
might have failed. 

However, in certain multi-player games, competitive and non-competitive
gamers can't co-exist happily. Some people are worried that by excluding
novices from some competitions, we'll be closing our doors as a
convention to beginners, and that we'd likely become a backward-looking
and shrinking hobby as a result. I myself would submit that there's a
time and a place for casual/informal/non-competitive play, and the World
Championships ain't it. If we get to the point where experienced and
competitive gamers are driven away from events because they're
frustrated by the inevitability that wins and losses will be determined
by factors beyond their control (i.e., the poor play of other players),
how does that help the hobby? I am - or at least used to be - a diehard
TNW player, and the five-player TNW tournament was the event I probably
looked forward to the most three years ago when I came to my first
convention. Now that I've experienced four different five-player games
of TNW at the convention, only one of which produced a truly excellent
gaming experience - and that in a game which I lost quite comfortably -
and two of which were quite the opposite because of poor play by
inexperienced gamers, I'm quite likely to never enter the five-player
event again. (If you could guarantee that I'd draw France in one of my
games and thereby guarantee that I would have a significant degree of
control over my own destiny, that would be different, but of course it
doesn't work that way.) Instead, the event will likely continue to
attract lots of players who are dipping their toes in the water, playing
the game for the first or second time in the preliminary heats and
perhaps - as was the case for one of my opponents this year - deciding
that they actually don't like the game at all. Are those the sorts of
people who are going to build the hobby? 

The fact of the matter is that most of us have far more games than we'll
ever play, and if you restricted entry in some events to self-styled
experienced gamers, less experienced and/or non-competitive gamers would
almost certainly find something else to play. Unlike some other
proposals I've seen, my preferred solution isn't exactly radical: let's
have 5-10 multi-player events each year (never the same event in
consecutive years) get a special classification, "For Advanced,
Competitive Gamers Only". I'd even be OK to encourage the GM for such an
event to hold the sort of "scheduled open gaming" described previously
simultaneously with the competitive tournament in such events; those
players could keep going into multiple rounds, and their participation
would count for the player-hours formula, but they would not be eligible
to win a laurel. (Alternatively, events would have to earn this
classification based upon past participation, and they would
automatically re-enter the Century the following year regardless of the
player hours formula.) The point of this system would be to acknowledge
the difference between competitive and non-competitive gamers, a
difference which seems to be widening and could cause serious problems
in the future if it remains unacknowledged. 

Cheers, Darren


Jeff Cornett  - Aug 8, 2007 8:24 am (#25104 Total: 25211)  
I'm not winning ... 
	 
Two Division Tournaments

It's very obvious that there are two types of gamers who attend the
WBCs: those who come to play games, and those who come to play
competitive games. 

Darren's essay was very thoughtful and well written, with some
constructive new ideas to consider. 

Let's not simply jump all over new ideas (or even old ideas resurfaced)
simply because we can cite annecdotes where one or more GM's tried and
failed at doing something similar in the past. 

The notion of a separate track for novices can be implemented but this
should be an OPTION that the GM is allowed to choose, not a requirement
for those who do not think this would work well for their tournament or
their style of GMing. 

Two player games are not excluded from the whack factor, but two
independent tracks can minimize the problem. Multiplayer games are more
vulnerable to the randomness of inexperienced play, thus affecting the
outcome -- not merely the competitive enjoyment factor. 

Lacking clear statements of mission, vision and values for the WBC, we
continually debate whether we really are trying to run a world
championships, or simply trying to grow this convention as large as it
can get by offer tournaments and formats based on their popularity to
the masses. 


Craig Yope  - Aug 8, 2007 9:22 am (#25109 Total: 25212)  
WBC Axis & Allies GM- I make and sell die towers. See post #21001 in the WBC 
folder for some pictures of my towers. 	 

You have been forwarned! (That is if you took the time to read the event preview.)

A: Experienced Players Only—rules are not taught before or during play
(red in the alphabetical listing and on the Kiosk displays); 

As I said, I don't interpret this as a prohibition on entering if you
aren't "good enough" at the game. It's just a warning that the GM won't
necessarily teach the rules. And the BPA website backs up my
understanding. 

The event I GM (A&A) is an "A" event, but that doesn't mean I don't want
people new to the convention/the event to try it. I just want them to
understand that they are expected to have a certain level of competence
and that they will have to deal with good players that will "lay the
wood" to them if given the chance. 

I want new players to join in, but I am not going to dumb things down or
take away from the enjoyment of the top players. 

This is what I had to deal with when I went and played Gettysburg for
the first time on Wednesday. I had never played the game before (I have
a copy and had read the rules) and didn't want to mess with the system
by getting in the way. But I also realized that the event format being
used by the GM (Vince is the man!) was flexible enough to allow me to
stumble through both of my attempts at the game without it affecting my
opponents chances to advance. 

The event format can go a long way towards minimizing the effect that
unexperienced players have on advancement of others. 

Craig


Bruce Reiff  - Aug 8, 2007 9:22 am (#25110 Total: 25212)  
Pete Stein - Moves to Columbus in 2005. 0 plaques in '05, 1 in '06 & 2 in '07. 
Price increase coming up in CABS training dept. 	 

>He did nothing wrong. It's perfectly fine for him to play, as long as
he can learn the rules in 15 minutes (which isn't hard for most Euros).
An "A" event just means the players are expected to know the rules. It's
not a mandate that you be some kind of expert. 

Yes, he did. He demanded to be taught the game by the GM. It's class A,
and he had no business even asking 15 minutes before the event. 

Look, I really have no problem with people playing in a events as long
as they have some clue as to what's going on. Sometimes you just get
kuhnered. The point I'm trying to make is that there really is not going
to be a middle ground for those who think newbies should be 'funneled'
into special divisions and those who think that anyone should be able to
play any game in any round at any time regardless of the games rating. 

I'm just trying to say we should put a little of the onus back on the
players where it belongs. If everyone just used a little common sense
and took some personal responsibility, most of these problems would go
away. Of course that's true in life as well, but that's a whole 'nother
can of worms. 

I'd never dream of playing POG at the WBC. Why, I've played maybe twice
and would just be cannon foder for someone and give them a crappy,
boring game with my ineptitude. I'd certainly never ask the GM to teach
me 15 minutes before the tournament starts. 

However, I'd love to play games like VITP and Wilderness Wars...if I
could only find the time. But that's a whole different issue. 


Randy Cox - Aug 8, 2007 9:24 am (#25111 Total: 25212)  
"...war in Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. 
We would have been forced to rule Iraq...Had we gone the invasion route, 
the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - 
George Bush [Sr.], 1998 	 

>there's a time and a place for casual/informal/non-competitive play,
and the World Championships ain't it. 

Your opinion only. Plenty of people think differently. I'd dare say more
than half come "just to play." Way more than half. I bet the number of
self-anointed "expert players" are less than 10% of the convention total
(which doesn't mean the others are 'bad' players, just not self-selected
experts). 

>I'd even be OK to encourage the GM for such an event to hold the sort
of "scheduled open gaming" described previously simultaneously with the
competitive tournament in such events; those players could keep going
into multiple rounds, and their participation would count for the
player-hours formula, but they would not be eligible to win a laurel. 

Look out there. You're preaching almost what I've advocated for awhile
now. Let people sign up to "just play" and they are paired up with other
"just players". The GM still gets the precious ass-hours and headcount,
and the "novice"/"casual" gamer gets to play the game against new
friends, but they don't step on the competition freak's sandbox. 

As to the notion of having just a few (I think you said 10 or so)
multi-player games for the die-hards, don't we already have that? All
you're really talking about is an A-level tournament with sufficient
minimal requirements to turn off the casual gamer. If Settlers of Catan
still requires something like 5 playings for all entrants, that would be
an example. If one is a multi-player competition freak, that person
should seek out such games as that and eschew the fluffy,
less-competitive games like Alhambra or Goa or whatnot. 

Point is: there's already plenty for the so-called 'experts' to do to
fill a convention. But they come over to the casual tournament turf and
try to bully others into believing the game is supposed to be for
experts only. Sad, indeed! 


George Young  - Aug 8, 2007 9:34 am (#25113 Total: 25212)  

While I sympathize with Arthur's concern (and generally agree with Steve
Pleva about the frustration when one player unknowingly throws the
game), I don't see any good solution. The novice/experienced split
partially addresses the perceived problem, but as others have pointed
out, would be a pain to implement and I think would send a rather
negative tone. 

But even the split doesn't address the fact that different players, even
experienced ones, have very different approaches. As Arthur mentioned,
one player at his table simply tried to optimize her score, while doing
minimal harm. I've played in many multi-player BPA tournaments and this
style difference really comes through. For example, I was knocked out of
last year's AOR semi by a player who was out of the running, but sought
solely to optimize his score -- without caring that he was essentially
picking the winner of the game. Was he wrong? I studiously avoid playing
kingmaker when I'm out of it, but others disagree. [Similarly, I'm often
shocked that many experienced players don't attempt to take out the
leader, but instead hope to just improve their score even if it's 2d.]
Just different styles. 

This is a problem inherent in multiplayer games unless the table is
loaded with sharks. I see no alternative but to accept it --- as a
result, I play largely 2 player games at WBC. Multiplayer are only for
fun or for on-line where I don't have the same emotional commitment
(except where the GM will permit us to arrange a table with similar
skill/attitude levels.) 


Arthur Field - Aug 8, 2007 9:46 am (#25114 Total: 25212)  
It is the system

Official message to Euro GM's: Build up your number of players because
you can't get into the Century without them since a 2 player game cannot
amass sufficient buttocks hours. (e.g. Louis 14, Mexica, Shadow of
Emperor, probably Colosseum, and a host of others all departed with 30
players). 

Message to Euro players from Rio: Sit down at my table and I will teach
you to play X Euro game. (so you will want to buy a copy) 

Now we end up with people in games which are far more sophisticated than
merely the rules and the whack factor increases. This does not happen in
war games. You couldn't read the rules of Nappy in 15 hours, much less
15 minutes. You can, however, learn the rules of St Pete in 15 minutes.
Strategy and tactics is a whole 'nother matter. I have played 861 times
against the AI, win 41%, and still feel I have a lot to learn in St
Pete. e.g. the observatory is actually a bad card in many circumstances,
knowing which ones is quite difficult. 

As numbers grow, need to win multiple heats grows. Even winning 1 heat
isn't sufficient to advance. In fact, I was told my W L W would be
insufficient against a W W L. ???? But with all the scheduling needs how
does one play in 3 heats of every Euro game? 

Other irony: if you don't bring a board, you might not play, plus we who
care do bring games. So we end up at different boards and greatly
increase the newbie probability since they never bring boards. Solution?
Don't bring board! Makes no sense. 

Darren and Jeff have excellent points. What is so incredibly difficult
about having 2 side by side simultaneous divisions of Euro games? e.g.
El Grande had at least 10 new players in with the sharks. Have 2 tables
of novice and 4 tables of experienced. Let the novices learn the game
together at their own pace. (I would want this were I new to a game.)
Hold the novice final 1 period before the regular final. For the final,
let the novice winner decide whether to sit into the regular (spot
earned). If declined, advance 5 of the high level. If accepted, advance
4. Everybody is happy. Give the novice a small plaque, plus the chance
at the large one. 

What is so incredibly difficult about this? 

I don't want to be the whack job at a table. And, I find more often than
not, I suffer from the whack factor rather than benefit from it. 

Everyone can make a mistake. But when it comes from a lack of
understanding about the game (not just its rules), then it hurts. PRO:
player A mayors to get the $1 (also available on other items), which
permits player B to man both harbor and wharf that weren't manned, thus
allowing player B to ship, when B was going to have to mayor. Add 7
points to player B's hand. That hurts when you are player C and it never
seems to happen to me as B. It does get frustrating after a while. 

Alternate solution: play all finals first.

Again, virtually every activity of competitive nature I know has a
novice class and a master class. What is wrong with it? Philosophy or
logistics? Or is the sole goal to increase numbers in attendance?
Because it was already way too crowded at a lot of events. 

Ah well, if Arthur suggested it, must just be to get him more wood, not
improve the gaming experience for everyone...;-( 


Darren Kilfara - Aug 8, 2007 9:47 am (#25115 Total: 25212)  
Monty Panesar! 	 

Randy, in my first quote, you deleted the 

>I myself would submit that 

before the 

>there's a time and a place for casual/informal/non-competitive play,
and the World Championships ain't it. 

which makes it clear that this is my own personal opinion. If you had
quoted me correctly, your next paragraph would have been unnecessary. 

As for the rest of your post, I think terms like "competition freak" and
"self-anointed 'expert players'" aren't very helpful, and inadvertantly
reinforce the point I made in my initial post that competitive gamers
seem to have a better understanding of non-competitive gamers than the
other way around. My goal in contributing to these forums is to try and
make things better for both types of gamers; I don't have a lot of
sympathy for people who want to push one type of gaming above the other,
i.e. by de-emphasizing competitive gaming. 


Barcafer - Aug 8, 2007 9:51 am (#25116 Total: 25212)  
Ludeo Ergo Sum 	 

As well stated as Darren's essay was, following his suggestions would, I
believe, be the beginnning of the end of the WBC. We have always run on
the tenent of "show up with the game and you are guaranteed to play". 

"A" level events are for players who know how to play the game. That
does not mean that they are supposed to be experts in all the tactics or
"perfect strategies" of the game. There has never been a requirement of
a positive AREA rating or a certain number of games played. I have
plenty of games of Puerto Rico under my belt, but I am sure I would make
a mess of the final, if I ever made it there (which is doubtful). 

I think the solution to the problem is that if you are not willing to
live with the randomness of multiplayer games, avoid them. 

As to the inexperienced person getting in a game and not playing
perfectly, that person may learn from their mistakes and be the winner
in a couple years. 

As to our being the "World Championships", let us put that into
perspective. We do not have regional qualifiers, we are not an
invitational event and we do not pay appearence fees (though I would
gladly accept one.) We are, to the best of my knowledge, the largest
event dedicated solely to boardgaming and thus adopted that name. 

Don and the board have always stressed that we should have a fun,
competetive environment. Thus far, with the few rare exceptions, that is
what we have been. To start to say some players are not worthy will
result in a small tournament that would not be much fun at all. 


Darren Kilfara  - Aug 8, 2007 10:20 am (#25119 Total: 25213)  
Monty Panesar! 	
 
I appreciate your civil tone, Phil, and most of the points you've just
made are quite valid. However... 

>As well stated as Darren's essay was, following his suggestions would,
I believe, be the beginnning of the end of the WBC. 

...do you really think that having 5-10 "Advanced Players Only"
tournaments would be the beginning of the end of the entire convention,
particularly if it was stipulated that the same game couldn't be thusly
categorised in consecutive years? I've never played PRO and can only go
by what's been said in this forum, but it does sound like the experience
can be completely ruined for everyone in a given game by just one bad
apple. And everyone's gaming time at the convention is precious,
competitive and non-competitive gamers alike - not just the latter. 

(I guess this debate in some way reflects the current debate in society
between individual rights vs. corporate rights; the viewpoint espoused
by some people here is that all individuals should have the right to
play in whatever they want as long as they know the rules, whereas I and
others perhaps believe that granting those rights to everyone on an
individual basis can create greater problems if those rights are abused.
In the hypothetical PRO game I've just described, three of the four
players involved are getting screwed because the other one has had his
rights protected...) 

To answer one final point, then: 

>I think the solution to the problem is that if you are not willing to
live with the randomness of multiplayer games, avoid them. 

That's probably exactly what I'm going to do at future conventions
unless something changes. I just want to make sure you and others are
aware that a policy of driving competitive and experienced players away
from multiplayer games in favor of novice players who may be sampling
lots of games (and would probably just sample different games if
excluded from some) may not be the best way forward, for the convention
or the hobby itself. 

Cheers, Darren 


Darren Kilfara  - Aug 8, 2007 10:30 am (#25122 Total: 25213)  
Monty Panesar! 	
 
Bill,

>There's a difference between "trying to win" and "winning is
everything". When a person decides they are angry about how someone
should have played a particular turn in a game, because it would have
been helpful to their own position, they have gone all the way to
"winning is everything" side. 

>I'm glad to see that the BPA has no intention of pandering to that type
of control freak. 

I'm sorry, but I feel you (and others here) completely misunderstand the
situation being described. Even Arthur, self-confessed wood whore that
he is , is at present talking primarily about the enjoyment of the game,
not about winning the game. In certain multi-player games, a single
novice can screw up the gaming experience for everyone else. Have you
not ever played in such a game and been frustrated by this other
person's inability to "keep up" or a tendency to find that one person's
mistakes disproportionately benefit one player at the expense of the
others? 

Peter,

>it would be impossible to enforce an expert only entrance condition
anyway 

That's very true. However, giving that pointer would put the onus on the
individual to understand what he's getting himself into, and that he
should expect a rough time from the other players if he fails to meet
certain standards. That alone would discourage most novices from
participating; would it deter intermediate-level gamers as well who
might otherwise be welcome to participate? Perhaps; but again, in a
convention with well over 100 competitions, what's wrong with having
just a few reserved for expert-level play? 


Arthur Field - Aug 8, 2007 10:31 am (#25123 Total: 25213) 
Not a control freak

I am always amused when I read a statement : 

>When a person decides they are angry about how someone should have
played a particular turn in a game, because it would have been helpful
to their own position, they have gone all the way to "winning is
everything" side. 

and then I look up the laurels on the BPA website for the poster, only
to find the answer is "0" 

I conclude either the person has never been to a WBC or never even
placed in a single game. 

Hence, I don't believe the person has any comprehension of the issue
whatsoever. 

This is NOT about winning is everything. If it were, I would simply have
stayed in the St Pete heats to win enough points to advance, which I
didn't, since I wanted to get in a fun, but 5 hour game of Manifest Dest
to help support the creators of that game. 

Indeed, I believe a novice track would increase the number of people who
come to an event. I know several people (including my spouse) who refuse
to play in a game if they aren't familiar with both the rules and the
strategy. I almost had to force her to play ElG because she was so
afraid of the sharks. But, in my world, avoiding challenge IS losing.
And we don't lose if we can avoid it. 

A divided level would permit all types of players to play and not feel
intimidated. I could play in a Brittania, which I avoid since I don't
want to look like an idiot or interfere with the regulars. Ditto a
Tigris or a Taj Mahal or a slew of others I simply don't go to. Look at
tennis. I am a 3.5 level player. I shouldn't be playing 2.0's. Not fair
to them. Nor should I be playing 5.0's. Not fair to me. Nobody in tennis
thinks this is strange. Can you imagine the Greenville Host soccer team
playing the Glasgow Rangers for the FA cup? Never happen. 

I just wonder why so many of you are against the idea of two levels. Is
it you don't want novices to have an opportunity to play, or just that
you want to beat up on them? 

Ah well, nothing will ever change...at least I still get to feel WBC
mode for a week. An extra 6 days to wait this year... 


Bruce Monnin  - Aug 9, 2007 10:25 am (#25292 Total: 25450)  
Editor of MMP's Operations Magazine 	 

PRO GOLF

62 participants teed off from the Hopewell room this year, only 34 of
whom had played the previous year. That means there were 28 players show
up who did not in 2006. One of these new players, daughter of the GM
Alexandra Monnin, posted a score of 2-under par, good enough for 10th
place and far better than her father ever does. Continuing the trend,
BPA board member Ken Gutermuth was destroyed by his daughter Lisa and
another board member, Andy Lewis, took it hard on the chin, losing to
his wife Carrie by eight strokes. 

After the 75 minute first round was completed on the 18 holes of the
2002 version of the Augusta course, Beth Zhao, Erica Kirchner and Keith
Hunsinger all came into the clubhouse tied at 7-under par. That left
only one opening in the Skins games to determine the champion, which
Carrie Lewis earned with the only score of 6-under par for the event.
Thus, for the first time in many years, no sudden death playoff was
needed to determine the Skins game final four. Six-under was also the
score needed to advance last year, so it appears that the dice were
consistent the last two years. 

These top four players were then transported to the Lancaster Host Golf
Club for the 12 hole Skins game. A new twist this year allowed these
four golfers to upgrade to one of the legends of the game if they so
desired. Carrie Lewis took advantage, moving up to Arnold Palmer. Beth
Zhao made the obvious choice in keeping her Tiger Woods card, as did
Erica Kirchner when she kept Phil Mickelson. However, a few eyebrows
were raised when Keith Hunsinger decided to stick with the golfer who
brung him, the infamous Shigeki Maruyama. 

The Skins game began with the players halving the first two holes on the
course. Phil Mickelson came through for Erica Kirchner by being the only
golfer to birdie the par four third hole, thus giving Erica the first
three Skins of the evening (or maybe we should say early morning). The
next two holes were also halved, and Beth Zhao claimed the next three
Skins when Tiger Woods was the only golfer to par the par three sixth
hole. 

The tension started to build as the seventh hole was halved and
Hunsinger and Lewis both eagled the par five eighth hole. The ninth hole
was also halved, leaving four Skins up for grabs on the par four tenth.
The three name golfers all scored birdie, but Shigeki Maruyama came
through with the big eagle to give Hunsinger the lead in Skins. Kirchner
earned the Skin on the eleventh hole, and after the 12th hole was
halved, it took two extra holes to award the last Skin to Zhao, thus
leaving her tied with Hunsinger and Kirchner with four Skins apiece. 

The event then moved on to sudden death on the par five 15th hole. Zhao
and Kirchner both birdied the hole, but Shigeki Maruyama again came
through for Hunsinger, with a long eagle putt dropping to give Keith the
dramatic victory. Two holes later Erica birdied the par four 17th to
earn second place overall. Beth came out of the sudden death portion in
third place and Carrie finished fourth in the foursome. 

Hunsinger kept up his recent streak of collecting wood with the victory,
while his caddie, Alexandra Monnin, continued the GM family’s tradition
of riding to glory on the backs of others, joining her father in Pro
Golf history as the first family to produce two winning caddies. 


Keith Schoose  - Aug 9, 2007 2:00 pm (#25316 Total: 25450)  
"Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, 
TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" President Ronald Reagan 	 

>As a WBC vet I can tell you it is the friendliest con I have ever been
to. 

I attend the WBC, Prezcon, the Consimworld Expo as well as 3
Strategicons (Los Angeles area conventions) a year. 

In my experience, the friendliest convention by a large margin is the
Consimworld Expo. 

I rate Prezcon above the WBC in the "friendly quotient" as well. 

I might even place the WBC behind the Strategicons; but I'll say it is
too close to call. 

The above is not to say that the WBC is not a "friendly" convention. It
is just that given the competitive nature of a few individuals, all my
experiences at the WBC have not been the "friendliest." 

Do I enjoy attending the WBC? Yes. Do have have great friendships
established at the WBC that I look forward to renewing each year? Yes.
Do I recommend that Robin or anyone else thinking about attending the
WBC should go ahead and take the plunge next year? A rousing yes. 

>The "best in the world" stuff is all hooey. 

At last I find something Randy Cox said that I can agree with. The title
of the convention is for the most part puffery. Not there is anything
wrong with that. 

I am sure that some of the games played at the WBC feature some of the
best players in the world at those games; but I don't think the "best
players in the world" are represented in a majority of the events. 

I play in online leagues for Twilight Struggle, Paths of Glory and For
the People at Wargameroom.com <http://www.patmedia.net/bmh1980/>. There
are some great players in those leagues who happen to reside in Europe.
Until they show up at the WBC it is difficult to say who is really the
best in the world (although, I would probably bet on Master Pei in For
the People). 

>Consul results: 

I suspect that my brother, Bert Schoose, is somewhere on the leaderboard
for Consul.

Bert won:

# Panzerblitz
# Afrika Korps
# The Russian Campaign

And he finished second in Football Strategy. I am very proud of his performance.


Bert Schoose  - Aug 9, 2007 3:09 pm (#25318 Total: 25450)  
Welcome to the party, Pal! 	 

Warning - long post

My WBC AAR:

We arrived at the convention late on Saturday evening following an
uneventful 11.5 hour drive from Illinois. There was lots of buzz in the
lobby area as many of the Historicon attendees were winding down their
convention. I observed a group of WBC board members plus other folks
enjoying themselves in the lobby area but since I was a bit tired after
the drive, I passed on my opportunity to go and ask them how they plan
to vote on the pending issues that are sure to arise in the next year. 

The room was available upon checking in, which is always a good start.
The room was quiet, clean and did not contain a cracked sink. While far
from 5-star quality, it was exactly what I would expect for a week long
game convention. For me, a clean safe room to hold my games and allow me
to get a little sleep does the trick. 

Sunday morning was a bit lazy but I did go to the dealer area and picked
up a few things that would help to clutter up the room a bit. By Sunday
afternoon, I was ready to get into some gaming. I don’t play VITP very
often and I’m far from a good player but I know the rules and figure I
can get better by getting my brains beat in. I sure hope that my
participation in the event did not ruin someone else’s enjoyment! I was
matched up with Darren Kilfara. To my surprise, my USN was holding up
fairly well. By turn 6, all of the Japanese carriers were sunk except
for one. I was significantly behind in POC but saw my chance to perhaps
pull an upset by taking on the full brunt of the Japanese LBA in the
Hawaiian Islands with my carriers. Alas, my earlier fortune ran out and
I was only able to shoot down one LBA while getting all of my carriers
sunk. I took pride in a fairly well played game, learned some new
tactics, and was pleased to hear that Darren went on and won the
tournament. 

One game of VITP was enough for me and it was on to the Grognard precon
games. I don’t remember the exact order of games played but I spent the
next several days playing many of the 2-player wargames. Some of the
matches that stick out for me include winning my first TRC game versus
Gary Dickson. Despite Randy’s ranting to the contrary, Gary is one of
the best players in the world in this game. He has proven his abilities
in numerous formats and to win against him was a high honor. Getting the
chance to play folks with his ability is what makes the WBC well worth
the investment of dollars and vacation time again and again. 

I played and got quickly crushed by one of the best PGG players in the
world, John Popiden. I hope that he did not mind crushing a newbie. I
played last year’s PanzerBlitz champ, Greg Tanner, and was doing pretty
good in the scenario when inexplicably; I left a gaping hole in my line
that Greg promptly exploited- game over. Greg Smith quickly crushed me
in Gettysburg ’88 but look out folks; I’m learning that one quickly and
may actually be competitive by next year. I lost to George Karahalios in
Bulge 81 but I never did find the time to get in a game of Anzio. 

Along the way, I did manage to pick up a few wins. I played several
games of AK and managed to win all of them. One win was versus Mark
Gutfreund, who had knocked me out of the PBEM tournament in the first
round. Revenge can be sweet. I took on Bruno Sinigaglio in TRC and
thought his vaunted ‘go for Moscow’ strategy had no chance. He proved me
wrong with a tactic that I did not expect that got him close to taking
Moscow but the dice failed to come through for him in the end and I had
another victory. 

To take a break from all of the wargames, I decided to try my hand at
WPS. I had made the final table in my previous attempt at the WBC. Lo
and behold, I had pretty much all of the luck at my table (which
included the 2-time former champ named Dave), and I easily won my table.
The win qualified me for the final table but as I’ll point out later, I
could not make it to the finals on Saturday due to other gaming
conflicts. 

I also wanted to play in Lost Cities since the GM; Ivan does such an
awesome job in running his tournament. Somehow, I had a 2nd place finish
in this tournament two years back even though I was pretty much a
newbie. I’m sure glad they didn’t separate me into some beginner’s group
back then! Anyway, my good luck in this game continued as I was able to
win my match but those darn time restraints prevented me from playing
any other rounds. One win was probably not enough to make it into the
round of 32 anyway. 

My next foray outside of the wargame area was to play in the Football
Strategy tournament. This has always been one of my favorite games. As
usually happens to me in this tournament, I won my first game but lost
the second, this time versus Joe Powell, who has beaten me in VITP in
the past. The next night, I decided to try Football Strategy again. To
my surprise, I managed to win my second game after the obligatory game
one win. Another win earned me a match versus Bruce Reiff in the heat
finals. I was certainly looking forward to this game and it did not
disappoint. I scored first and then promptly missed the extra point. By
the 4th quarter, Bruce had built a 14-6 lead. I did manage to finally
put together a drive that resulted in a TD. With about 7 minutes left, I
went for two and was successful. A wild last couple of minutes of the
4th quarter which saw us both throw interceptions (Bruce’s was in the
red zone), ended when Bruce missed a FG that had a 50% chance of
success. In OT, I got the ball first but failed to move it at all. When
Bruce got the ball, he converted two consecutive 3rd-down plays. On his
next 3rd down play, from my 44 yard line, Bruce called 17 and my ‘B’
defense was toast, Game over! Although the outcome was not what I
wanted, I think it was my most enjoyable game of the week. 

My last non-wargame effort was to play my team game of Battleline on
Friday night. I was crushed like a grape by all three of my pod mates.
One of these years, I might figure out this team game concept and pick
the right game. 

The good news from my crushing on Friday night was that it allowed me to
go and play in the PanzerBlitz semi-finals that I had qualified for. I
managed to win against Rick Northey, the number 1 seed. This left me
with a finals match against the defending champ, Greg Tanner. Greg had
knocked off Marty Musella, my teammate, in the other semifinal match.
Greg and I had a very good match that went down to the last turn but in
the end, the dice fell my way and I had captured my first 1st place
‘wood’ ever at the WBC! 

The schedule worked out for me on Saturday as I had qualified for two
other semifinal matches in the grognard events. In AK, where I had not
lost a preliminary match, I played against Bill Morse. Bill and I had
played at Prezcon in the finals and we had played earlier in the week in
a preliminary match. While Bill is an excellent gamer, AK is not his
strongest game so I was feeling confident. He did put a scare into me-
that is the nature of this game- but in the end, I was able to win and
advance to my second finals. My opponent in that game was the GM,
Jonathan Lockwood. Our schedules were able to accommodate a delay in
playing the game that worked out for me.

I had gone undefeated in the TRC preliminaries as well. Based on a die
roll, the top 2 qualifiers, Gary Dickson and I were to play a rematch in
the semifinals. Good die rolls for me and bad ones for Gary combined
with a few small mistakes turned this game from a close match to a
surprisingly easy win. I don’t think I could ever win that easily
against Gary again. It was just my day as the breaks kept falling in my
favor. I almost had to pinch myself as I was now qualified to play in a
3rd hard wood final. 

Tom Gregorio clearly outplayed me in the final TRC match but once again,
my new friend – good dice - rescued me. Note that in every game on
Saturday, I used my opponent’s dice, which seemed to do the trick. I was
quite pleased with my play in the TRC preliminary rounds and in the
semifinals. Clearly, I did not play too well in the final match but I
kept the game close and managed to win in the end because Tom forgot to
take a city that he easily could have. Next thing I knew, I had won the
TRC tournament after finishing 2nd in 2006. 

I could not savor this accomplishment right away as Jonathan returned
from his GMing duties involving Naval War. We still had to finish off
the AK finals. The early game was leaning very much in Jonathan’s favor
when suddenly he stopped getting supply units as the German player. He
still had the lead in the game but since he would not be able to
counterattack without supplies. I decided to launch a 1-1 attack versus
one of his (7-7-10) panzer divisions. I rolled a DB2, then an AB2 and
then finally I got an EX result on my 3rd attempt. This forced him to
put weaker units in the front line. I then managed to roll several DE
results on 3 and 4 to 1 attacks which hurt his forces quite a bit. I
then survived his last ditch 1-1 attack versus Tobruch. Shockingly, I
had won three 1st place woods. 

When I add in my 2nd place finish in Football Strategy (Bruce must have
won both heats and somehow I won the tiebreaker) along with the 3
wargame wins, I was able to quickly get over the fact that there was not
enough time to pursue my WPS final table efforts. Of course, my
teammates are wondering what the heck happened to me in Battleline. 

Considering my gaming efforts along with my time at the auction and
auction store, visits to the dealer area and the visiting with old and
new friends (the best part of the WBC!), I had a really great time once
again at this convention. I want to thank the board, the convention
director and the people that I competed against all week because I did
not have a bad experience with any gamer the entire week. 


Ric Manns  - Aug 9, 2007 8:37 pm (#25331 Total: 25450)  
In memory of Coach Terry Heoppner 1947-2007 	 

Hi Ric, It was a fun tournament but we sure could have used a few more
bodies. Here is an AAR. You can post it to Consimworld if you wish to.
-Barry 

There didn't appear to be enough table space in Lampeter Hall at the
start of the Liberty tournament, but with only 13 players showing up,
not much room was needed. This year the average bid to play the
Americans decreased to 0.6 VP, but the balance was perfect as each side
won 50% of the games played. The Americans won 2 of the 3 games played
with a 0 bid and the British won 5 of the 8 games played with a 1 VP
bid. Only 1 game was played with a 2 VP bid and the result was an
American win. The Americans also won all games where the French appeared
in 1776 and lost all games where the French did not appear. French entry
in 1777 and 1778 resulted in American wins 40% and 50% of the time
respectively. 

Once the Swiss part of the tournament was completed, Nick Benedict,
David Metzger, Scott Moll, and Joe Pabis advanced to the semi-final
round. While 3 of the 4 semi-finalists advanced using other
tie-breakers, Scott Moll had to win a dice roll vs Llew Bardecki. 

In one semi-final game, David's British slowly and methodically killed
13 of Joe's American blocks before winning the game in 1782. In the
other game, Nick's British rolled over Scott's Americans in 1776 before
the French could enter. 

In the final, David bid 0 while Nick bid 1 VP so David got the British.
This set up a re-match as David and Nick had played in the 1st round
with Nick winning as the Americans. 

The final started with Nick drawing and placing Morgan in Richmond and
then attacking Norfolk and killing the Loyalist there on the 2nd turn.
Nick also killed the Mohawk block on the 3rd turn. Meanwhile, David drew
2 supply cards and used his only action card to attack Charleston with 2
Loyalist blocks. However, the attack failed and both blocks had to
retreat to Augusta where they later disbanded. 

In 1776, David used the 1st 2 turns to move the blocks in Quebec and BWI
to the Atlantic and then sea attack New Brunswick. Nick retreated to
Philadelphia while building replacements in Philadelphia and Yorktown.
Both players spent the rest of the year building up their respective
forces. When the year ended, David had 7 blocks in Boston and 6 in New
Brunswick. Then, Nick rolled a 10 and the French were in. 

In 1777, Nick sea attacked a vacant BWI from FWI. He also captured
Montreal after attacking the Loyalist block there. Meanwhile, David
moved his Boston mob to the Atlantic and both players continued drawing
replacements. On the final turn David sea attacked Philadelphia and used
his blocks in New Brunswick to cut off all retreat routes. This resulted
in the destruction of 4 good American blocks, but Tarleton died due to
lack of a retreat route in the attack on Baltimore. The dead pile now
had 4 American and 3 British blocks respectively with the VP marker at
16. 

In 1778, David continued his assaults with 2 blocks taking Baltimore.
Meanwhile, 4 blocks sea attacked the French in BWI, killing the French
ground block and forcing the warship to retreat to the Atlantic. Nick
responded by using his French to sea attack both Philadelphia and
Baltimore with 3 blocks each. This forced David to retreat to New
Brunswick (from Philadelphia) and to the hex NW of Baltimore. David then
had to use his next move to force march the survivors of the Baltimore
attack into New Brunswick while Nick consolidated all of the French
ground units in Baltimore. On the last turn of 1778, David sea attacked
a vacant Philadelphia again. 

Both players spent 1779 and 1780 playing cat and mouse. David formed a
killer A/B block group but Nick wouldn't give him any easy kills. At the
end of 1780, David sea attacked Norfolk with this group, but Nick was
able to retreat both blocks to Richmond. 

In 1781, David attacked Alexandria on the 4th turn to set up a 5th turn
attack on Baltimore. However, storms in the south torpedoed this plan
and when Nick moved a block from Richmond into Yorktown, it prevented
David from disbanding any of the units in Alexandria. Therefore, Fraser
joined the dead pile due to winter attrition. 

In 1782, David recaptured Yorktown but was still unable to kill the
defending block. David also sea attacked a vacant Boston on the 4th turn
to set up a decisive 5th turn battle but once again there were storms in
the north and the attack never happened. It was at this point that David
conceded giving Nick the victory.


Jeff Cornett  - Aug 10, 2007 9:07 am (#25347 Total: 25450)  
I'm not winning ... 	 

1812 After Action

After reading the AAR of Liberty it seems that the "Block Game" tourneys
really suffered. Liberty drew 13, I think Dan said that Crusader Rex
drew 13 as well. What was the attendance of 1812 & Hammer of the Scots?
Wow! I thought it was just War of 1812 that got whacked in attendance.
We drew 13 as well -- I guess the last 13 block gamers in the world.
Anyway, those who showed up Tuesday night still had a good time playing,
and some very tense battles. Three players advanced from Swiss to the
playoffs with 2 wins. Only one player - four-time champion Dave Metzger
- advanced with three wins including a win in the last Swiss round
against the defending champion, Scott Cornett. 1812 is an easy game to
learn and is a bit dicey, so even the best players can get whacked from
an upset battle. In the first semi-finals, I was matched against 4 time
champion Dave Metzger who had already beaten me in the first round of
Swiss. My strategy against a better player: try to find some 50-50
chance for the upset. Having won the second initiative on the last turn
of the first year, my colonials were able to eek out a first year win by
passing some desperation force march rolls to capture the last point
needed. Defending champion, Scott Cornett, easily won his semi-finals
game. He then came from behind to beat me in the finals. I had the game
won at the end of the first year, except for his upset naval victory in
the battle of Lake Champlain (1 ship vs. 2) - a 4 point VP swing needed
to prevent the victory. He then overran the Americans in the next year
as my forces were badly scattered in my try for the first year victory.
After 9 years, War of 1812 is no longer Century and will need to be
voted back into the WBC. If not, then Scott and I and Dave may need to
convert to We the People and go Pei-whacking. 

Martin Sample  - Aug 10, 2007 2:21 pm (#25405 Total: 25450)  
"Kent, meltdown is one of those ugly buzzwords . I prefer to use the term 
unrequested fission surplus" - C. Montgomery Burns 
	 
My WBC AAR ( long )

Got up at the crack of dawn Sunday and drove down to Lancaster, arriving
at around 12:30 . Had time to eat lunch at the bar before playing a
round of Hannibal at 2PM . Played the Carthaginians and was doing decent
until Nero, of all consuls, whacked 8 Carthaginian CU and Hannibal
himself on about turn 5 . Up to that point, we had had about 4 battles
that went 10-11 rounds where we both had essentially the same hands . I
was still doing OK and held out hopes of a tie, but when he was twice
able to play Hanno Counsels Carthage to prevent moving troops from
Africa, I was hosed, as I only had one general in Spain. My last hope
was when I moved Hasdrubal up to Massilia in hopes of drawing out a
Roman invasion and Scipio made a landing down in Idubeda, thinking he
would have time to consolidate . I played my Force March card to attack,
knowing that w/o a retreat path I could possibly kill Scipio . Alas, it
was not to be and I resigned at the end of turn 8 . We finished in a
little over 2.5 hours…..for the life of me, can't believe that this game
has 5 hour rounds ! 

Sunday evening, went out to dinner w/Stein and Keith Hunsinger to a nice
quiet Italian place across the street. Good dinner, unless you were
Stein, who came down with a gall bladder problem that night. While Stein
was hurling, played some games at the bar, including Galaxy and a couple
games of Tongiaki, a tile laying exploration game in the Pacific that
Chris Hancock foisted upon us . 

Monday 

I played in two rounds of War of the Ring . Didn't use the expansion ,
as I wasn't familiar with it . Played the Free Peoples both times . In
the first game, I was in decent shape Ring wise, having entered Mordor
with only 2 Corruption against a bid of 13 and I had two hobbits as well
as Frodo and Sam . The Hunt Tiles were brutal though….in retrospect I
was doing well enough elsewhere that I could have stopped short of
Mordor and tried for a military win . I had wiped out several Shadow
armies and Orthanc was ripe to fall . Anyway, Frodo perished as he tried
to move into the final space on Mt Doom when the dreaded " roll a die "
Hunt Tile came out and my opponent rolled 5 ! 

The second round was also a loss as the FP . In that game, my Fellowship
was hit early and often ; I had killed off five Companions just getting
to Lorien ! Meanwhile , the Shadow player was much more efficient than
the first one, moving his Nazgul from one battle to the next, and making
sure that one always sat on my last known position to maximize Hunt
Rerolls. Anyways, once Lorien, Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth,
Pelargir and Edoras fell, game over . 

Another night in the bar playing random stuff, including Category 5, a
fun reverse trick taking card game that Wray and his crew introduced me
to . Easy to finish in under an hour, especially if some poor sod ends
up eating big fat rows of high point cards . Cash n Guns, about which I
had heard so much, was a zip in my book . Nuff said. 

Tuesday 

Spend the whole day working the Auction with Bruce and company . Did
manage to sell of some never used stuff and actually spent less than I
sold games for . Picked up a shrink copy of Panther Games Trial of
Strength for only $25 in the Auction store . Also bought a copy of Der
MotorSpiel, a German car racing game and a mint copy of Roborally for
$50 in the Auction. Had a lot of fun helping out and will definitely do
so again if Bruce needs help next year. 

That night I won my heat of Atlantic Storm by a fair margin . 

Wednesday

Picked up Mark at the airport and was back in late morning . Played in
the Wellington tourney at noon and drew the Duke . He SUCKED . At the
halfway point in the game, he had conquered TWO fecking spaces . Besides
some slightly poor die rolling, what killed us was that the French were
constantly drawing extra cards through the event deck, on top of getting
several Resources through Routing our armies . That being said, it all
came down to a final battle for Madrid, with 16 dice per side , winner
take all . Wellington rolled ONE HIT . Fecker . Worthless British
poofdah . Game over . 

That night I played another heat of Atlantic Storm . Won again, in a
very close match ( 22-21-20-20-19 ) . Thanks to JR Tracy for giving me
the spoil in the last convoy that put me over the top. More Tongiaki in
the bar afterwards . 

Thursday 

Played Sword of Rome in the morning . Drawing last, I got the Gauls, who
seem to be the untouchables if you read the CSW folder . It was a five
player game and early on the Carthaginian player was doing well . So
well that going into turn 5 the Greeks had NO cities that weren't taken
or under siege - so they got no reinforcements and had to take off their
leaders. Carthage decides to mop up 4 leaderless CU left in Sicily .
Carthage rolls 1,1,1 and the Greeks roll pretty high . All of the sudden
Lilybauem turns Greek, the Carthaginian army and leader go bye bye, and
with it Catharge slides back to the middle of the pack . As Gaul, I had
spent a lot of 3 OP cards early to build up my army so that in the end
turn, I had over 30 CU on the map . I had gathered a lot of plunder
along the way, both by raiding a lot and whipping some large armies. In
the end, I managed an 11 VP tie w/Rome, won on tie breakers .
Incidentally, my final VP was a Roman city built in Etruscan territory
that turned out to be level 1 going into the last round . Brennus went
and camped out on top, successfully sacking it in the final Surrender
phase for the win . 

Played Galaxy after that and came in 3rd I think . Played a pick up game
of War of the Ring in the open gaming area that night . Once again
playing the Fellowship, I managed to parry the Shadow player militarily
and dunk the Ring with minimal corruption….of course the dead figures of
Gimli, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin would beg to differ the minimal part. 

At at a new Vietnamese place about a mile down the road from the Host .
Quite decent, quick, and cheap . 

Friday 

Sword of Rome final . Picking third in a four player game, took the
Gauls again . Early on, I was down a VP due to a large T Gaul incursion
. In fact, all three Neutrals were active early . The T Gauls, through
NPA cards and Bloodshed Beyond the Alps, had 8 CU on the end of turn 1 .
So I played the next couple turns in last, which at least allowed me to
manipulate the turn order. Meanwhile I built up my armies and went
raiding with 2 CU forces so that nobody would feel threatened . Brennus
showed up finally on turn 4 . Up to this point, it was a tight game .
Over the whole game, the VP scores were all between 7 and 5 . Turn 5 was
the turning point . The Romans were getting REALLY strong ( 9 CU a turn
reinforcements ) , so the E/S played attacked a Gallic home space to
both keep me down and catch up to Rome, who had taken Fregellae .
Brennus moved in behind and cut off the army, killing all 10 CU w/no
retreat . 5 Plunder and I am back to 6 VP . Turn 6 opens with Rome
surging and opening with the Dictator .The E/S plays Grand Coalition .
Now I am free to operate, knowing that only the T Gauls were a threat,
and at that I had just played Vengeance, which knocked them down to one
CU . So everyone attacks Rome . The Dictator plays as badly as my
Wellington did, losing every battle and getting stuck in Fregellae with
Samnites to the north and Greeks in Capua .Going into the last Surrender
phase, Rome and I are tied, with both of us sieging a city. He sieges
Tarquini, but I counter by sacking one of his northern cities for the
win . One of the closest final scores I can recall - I think it ended
7-7-6-5 . 

That afternoon played in another Atlantic Storm heat , which I lost .
But my two prior wins got me into the semifinals. As I sit down at my
semi table I see both Rob Winslow AND Pete Stein . Let the fun
begin….unfortunately none of us advanced, instead the win going to
someone whose incessant whining about bad cards belied his lead that
develeped by the halfway point in the game . The last convoy featured
some amusing negotiation between Pete, who would win the convoy, and
Rob, desperately trying not to come in last . 

Saturday

Was all open gaming. Played Wellington with Mark Hinkle, Chris Hancock ,
and another fellow ( Nick ) . I was Wellington again, but this time
could do no wrong . Mark made some ill advised attacks that led to the
routing of two French armies early on and Wellington taking Madrid on
turn 1 . Going into the last turn, I had every British CU on the map .
We ended the game midway through the final turn . In all fairness, I was
the only one who had played the game extensively. 

Played Leaping Lemmings with Rick Young and had a blast, even though I
came in last . Hope this one makes the GMT cut . Another game of
Category 5 with the Ferrell gang . That was it . Left right after the
meeting Sunday morning. 


Bruce Reiff  - Aug 13, 2007 10:50 pm (#25491 Total: 25535)  
Pete Stein - Moves to Columbus in 2005. 0 plaques in '05, 1 in '06 & 2 in '07.
Price increase coming up in CABS training dept. 
	 
Warning - very long posts!!!!

My 2007 WBC After Action Report

Never done one of these before, but after imploring everyone else to do
one, I thought I should put one together. 

Friday the 27th 

Spend long day driving to Lancaster. Cassidy Mullet and I whip my
daughter Nicole’s and Jeff Mullet’s in Combat Password. Both Cassidy and
Nicole are already twice the players Bud Sauer is. 

Dinner at the Historicon pig roast (yummy) and bought my pass for
Saturday. Then off to an early bed. 

Saturday the 28th 

Start day by sitting in for Don at the Historicon boardgames vs
miniatures seminar that Kaarin did. End up being her slide presentation
remote control. She does and excellent presentation. 

I then go down to the vaunted Historicon flea market. I’ve heard over
the years what great deals are to be had. I bought one game – an old
hockey game for a buck (I did get a good deal on some comic books). The
prices were ebay high. Was recognized by a lot of WBC regulars who were
also empty handed in the dealer room. One thing I did notice about the
Historicon crowd is they appear to be a much older crowd. Just an
observation. 

Spent the rest of the day at the Strasburg Railroad (I highly recommend
this – and get the first class ticket and the rest of the attractions
are free) and out a nearby farm going through a giant corn maze with the
family. Then had dinner with the Mullet and Gutermuth clans at Hershey
Farms. Jeff and I sat with all the kids and had great service. The
‘adult’ table had the same waitress and had awful services. Go figure. 

Finish the evening having drinks with Don Greenwood, the Lewis’s, John
Coussis and other friends in the lobby. 

Sunday the 29th 

Jeff’s back is hurting so we ditch the Hershey Park trip and instead I
decide to take the two little ones – Gracie and Victoria – to Dutch
Wonderland for the day. Wake up to rain and a flash flood warning for
the county. Darn. Instead Jeff, Debbie G. and I take two car loads of
kids to the movies. Then spend the rest of afternoon in the pool. Finish
the night with a card game with the boys. 

Monday the 30th

Get a frantic call about 9am from Jeff saying something about Stein had
to go to the emergency room overnight and Jeff had to take him to the
pharmacy and I would need to teach the demo of San Juan at 10am. I don’t
teach games at home for a reason – I suck at it. But I figure, everyone
knows how to play and it won’t be a big deal. Wrong – 15 or so people
show up! I muddle through with some help from the crowd. Jeff returns
just in time. We draw random pairings and in the first round I draw
Greenville Mafia member Ken Richards who I believe was in the top 6 last
year. I manage to pull out the victory. My 2nd round opponent was Herb
Gratz who was over from Germany. He had me on the ropes, but I eek out a
one point victory. My third round opponent was Dave Platnick. I eek out
another close one. Being 3-0 I can skip the 4th round and Sheeba Mullet
is kind enough to bring lunch. 

In the 1st single elim round I draw Jeff Senley and escape with another
win. In the second round I draw Euro shark Raphael Lehrer and win by a
point. That gets me a bye where I play the winner of David Platnick and
fellow Cabbie Pete Stein, who got no sleep the night before and was
playing on pain killers. Platnick is an expert at the game – no way Pete
can win. And yet, somehow he does. As soon as we realize Pete has beaten
David, Jeff Mullet shakes my hand and says congratulations. Greenwood is
informed of the situation and is depressed because he also knows the
probable outcome. 

We still aren’t sure if it was the drugs, the lack of sleep, or the
total lack of respect CABS has for Pete’s San Juan play, but Pete won.
Not only did he win, he crushed me. We go down to the registration room
to tell Don and Don Greenwood, Mr. Grumpy himself, hugs Stein. Tara
Greenwood cheers and even Gutermuth sticks his head in and cheers. The
best part though was walking back into my room where my daughter Nicole
ask me if I won San Juan. I tell her I lost and she asks who won. I tell
her and this is her actual response: “SERIOUSLY?!?!? Seriously YOU lost
to uncle PETE”. I get to spend the rest of the week hearing Stein jokes
from people I don’t even know. 

The wife and I then get to spend a lovely evening off site with Keith
Hunsinger and his new wife Sue and a group of close friends. We had a
great time exchanging stories and general fellowship. Thanks to Mark,
Paul and John for a wonderful time! 

Return just in time to join Don and Kaarin in MESE seminar. Finish the
evening with a board meeting until 12:30 and then a few minutes in the
auction. 

Tuesday the 31st

Get up at 6am and make my way to the Hess station down the road to get
some cash and pop. Put in ATM card ask for $400. Machine rattles for a
minute and kicks out my receipt saying I got $400. Oh and no money. I
panic. The extremely helpful people at the gas station (not!) say they
think there is a number on the machine to call. I call and it tells me
to call my bank. My bank tells me they’ll note a dispute and will let me
know in 7 to 10 days. What a lovely way to start the day! 

Get to the auction and all goes well. I sell a $1000+ item – 1st time
ever. I’d like to take a moment here to point out all the work that Ken
Gutermuth does behind the scenes. It takes him the better part of the
next 48 hours to get the money taken care of. Debbie and Lisa also help.
I get people coming up to me all week commenting and thanking me on the
auction. Well folks, I get to do the easy part. Ken does the hard work
afterwards. Next year, make sure to thank Ken as well. I’ll just thank
him publicly here. Thanks Ken! 

After the Auction it’s off to Auction (the game that is). Bud had to
cancel at the last minute so I get to GM. We set up the random draw and
I end up a table with long time WBCer Jim Garvin’s young daughter Patty.
I get a quick win and get abuse from the other players for beating up on
the kid. 

Next up was Attika where I’m the defending champ. I draw a table with
some fairly inexperienced players and am able to get a connection for
the win. 

I then go do my demos at 10pm and then play the Tuesday night late night
game Win, Place & Show. I manage to win a high scoring affair and earn a
trip back to the big board on Saturday night. Finally I’m able to get to
the room by 1:30 for a needed rest. 

Wednesday the 1st 

Since I won my Attika heat on Tuesday I can play in the Tuesday morning
March Madness heat and proceed to lose in the first game to long time
player Jim Bell. So much for plan B. 

The Attika semi is next and I pull out another victory. One more game
and I can ruin Don Greenwood’s week. The final is a three player affair.
But with the black cat of Pete Stein crossing my path I finish second.
Oh well. 

Next up is the SE round of Auction which I can skip because I won the
mulligan. So I just have to GM. We then play the semi-final of auction
immediately after. For the first time in several years Ken, Arthur and I
do not end up the same table. This has the fortuitous effect of saving
10 minutes of whining, bitching and moaning. I end up on a table with
former champ Kevin W, Arthur’s wife Kate and Steve Shambeda. It was a
very weird game that ended in an exhausted draw deck. I had Glasswear,
Tapastries, and another small set and some cash. No way I should have
won, but in a strange twist no one has any sets and I make my third
final. 

Next up is the first heat of Football Strategy. The designer, Tom Shaw
is playing. I got to play him once at Origins a couple of years ago and
I hope to get to play again. I do my part and win my first two games. I
then get the winner of Bill Cleary and Tom Shaw. While I’m waiting I
have time to play a round of Alhambra and lost, but had a really good
time. Come back to find Bill finishing up the win. I’m sad because I
don’t get to play Tom. I’m happy because I get to play Bill whom I’m
like 8-0 lifetime against. Bill takes a lead with a few minutes left but
I manage to drive for a winning score. I win one more game and I have to
play the winner of the Joe Powell/Kevin Keller game, but it’s late and
they ask if we can play later in the week. I agree, but it leaves me a
dilemma about the second heat. 

I miss out completely on Can’t Stop, and get to bed early – 1am


Bruce Reiff - Aug 13, 2007 10:51 pm (#25492 Total: 25535)  
Pete Stein - Moves to Columbus in 2005. 0 plaques in '05, 1 in '06 & 2 in '07. 
Price increase coming up in CABS training dept. 
	 
part 2

Thursday the 2nd

A 7:30 board meeting is very, very early. But at least we passed the
motion to bring back food vouchers again!!!!! Just kidding. Time for my
scheduled heat of March Madness. Another first round exit. I used to win
this game occasionally…. Well, with the first round loss, I have several
hours to kill. I can get a game in that I can’t advance in, or I can
give the wife a break and take the kids to the pool. I choose the
latter. 1 pm rolls around and it’s time for me to run Medici. I get
everyone going quick with the help of Beth (Bernard) Zhoa. I’m so old
that I can remember Beth as a 12 year old. Now she’s married!!!! I’m so
old. It amazes me some of the kids I’ve watch grow up. It’s also one of
the things I enjoy most about the WBC – seeing old friends (and kids of
old friends) again. Anyway, I win my game so I’m in the semi-final. 3pm
is my GOA mulligan round. I get a good score win my heat and advance to
the semi. I really like GOA. The depth of strategy is really amazing. I
know a lot of grognards give Euros a bad rap. This one has some depth.
So it’s 6pm and I have to decide if I’m going to play the second heat of
Football Strategy. I’d asked several people what they thought and they
all said go for it. My first round was against old Philly league player
Rob Kilroy. He kept it close but I score late to win by 2 touchdowns.
Dan Dolan Jr., who every year says he’s going to get me, has the chance
if he can hold onto a 4 point lead with 2 minutes left. He can’t and I
go yet another year without a Dolan whooping in FBS (well let’s be
honest, I’ve never had a Dolan whooping ). I win my next two games and
make the heat final against Bert Schoose. As he described it his AAR, it
was a great game that I was lucky to win. I also manage to get in my
annual Pro Golf round. I have the 34th (out of 36 I believe) best
golfer. I shoot 1 over and I don’t advance.
 
Friday the 3rd

It’s my last chance at March Madness and I like my team. I beat Ken
Gutermuth. At least it’s not his team game. I make the semi-finals of
the heat. I take a 20 point lead at halftime…..and then lose the game! I
really thought I had a chance, but I’m crushed like a bug. Ah, well.
Next year. 

The Medici semi-finals are up next. I draw former champ Pete Staab at my
table along with Jean-Francois Gagne. I get a couple of breaks and
finish 10 points ahead of Terri Weeks. Another final! Maybe now I can
ruin Don’s week. 

The other finalist were former champ Harald Henning, Tom Stokes and Ton
Dunning. All three are multiple plaque winners and great gamers. It’s a
tough match with everyone bidding for both offensively and defensively.
After 2 rounds I’m in 4th, 18 points behind Harald who’s in the lead. I
need to spend next to nothing, win the boat and make a ten point bonus
to win. 3 cards are left and I flip the 10. Only Harald and I are left.
I need to make Harald pay a lot and hope. He does. If I can flip the 3
and 5 of spice with the last two cards I win. First card – 3 spice!!!!
Second card 5……cloth. I finish second…again. CURSE YOU PETER STEIN!!!!!!
Thanks to Pete Staab for sticking around to GM the final. 

We’re done in plenty of time for me to get set up for my junior event –
Trouble. I get 32 kids this year and just barely have enough boards.
Being a juniors event I have a bit of latitude with the pairings. I
always try and pair the kids up by age so there is always one board with
the really young ones. My youngest, Victoria, was at this table. One of
the dads also stayed and helped with that table. AN HOUR LATER the
longest trouble game in the history of gaming is still going on! I’ve
got one semi-final already done so I decide if it doesn’t end in 10 more
minutes I’m going to adjudicate. Fortunately daughter #2 wins to
mercifully end the game from hell. Victoria finished second in a much
quicker semi and made the files. Could she pick up where her sister left
off? Nope – 3rd. And three games of trouble in a row for a six year old
are too many. Plus those older kids were actually using strategy!!! 

Battleline is next up. This is another one of my favorites. It’s a quick
card game, but skill usually wins out. I won this tournament three years
in a row at Prezcon and I’ve always advanced from my pool at the WBC,
but managed to lose in the single elim portion. I suspected this year
would be no different. 

I draw former champ and teammate Ken Gutermuth in my group. We both go
2-0 so we are playing to advance. He has me on the ropes, but I manage
to pull the breakthrough before he can get his fifth flag. I’m set up
for yet even more disappointment. I get Jeremy Billones in the first
round and get the win. Next up is ‘the kid’ Brad Raszewski. He knocked
me out two years ago in the first round and I beat his dad in the pool
this year so I was ripe for the picking but I managed the breakthrough
to move on. I then get Greg Kulp in the semi-finals. Again, I slip past
despite being down early. That only left Bill Banks between me and the
wood. I was behind and was going to lose 5 flags when I was able to get
into a tactics card battle with him and pulled the breakthrough and won
my first ever WBC Battleline wood. It was trial wood, but it still felt
good! 

Was done just in time to make Liars Dice. Play the first round with the
wife, Kate Tallion, Rebecca Hebner, Vassilli Kyrkos and Mark Mitchell(?)
and manage to win. I advance to the semis and am sitting next to one of
the gentleman from Japan. He doesn’t speak much English, but he sure
understands the game. We get down to one die each and he starts the
bidding with a 4. I have a three but bid a five. He counters and bids a
star. I decide to believe him and bid 2 3’s. He calls and he has a 3 as
well! I back into the finals. 

At the final table I’m to the left of a 14 year old girl. She kicks my
but and I finish 5th. Oh well, it was a good day and I got off the
schnide. I stay up chatting in the bar until 3:15. I’m way too old for
that! 

Saturday the 4th

I’ve got to GM GOA first thing and since I already won (and can’t
advance because of Crokinole Jr) I’m able to play the final of
Wednesdays Football Strategy against Joe Powell. Joe’s already been told
that if he wins he gets me again in the final. He starts out with a 10-0
lead. By the end of the first half it’s 10-10. I start the second half
with 17 unanswered points and win 27-17! Welcome home FBS plaque! 

High noon is the Crokinole Jr tournament which occurs mostly due to the
generosity of the Hilinski Brothers! Nicole and I lose a game to Danny
and Carrie Lewis but manage to climb back into it and make the semis
where we play the Lewis clan again. This time we win and make the final.
We play two 12 year olds in the final and we get absolutely smoked. Don
is giddy. Really! Nicole, on the other hand….. 

Next on the schedule was the Auction final which all of the players
agreed to play early. We played in the new Lancaster room which was very
nice. The final wasn’t, however. Jon Lockwood, through a combination of
aggressive play and fortuitous dice/cards won the game in only 5 turns.
I finished with exactly what I started with - $2000 and finished 4th. 

Next was the Win, Place and Show final. If you’ve never seen Ken’s giant
board, you need to. It’s a blast. Everyone decides to play the horses
Stuart Tucker did for The General one year. The only catch was that the
horses were renamed with wedding themes because they were used at Ken &
Debbie’s wedding reception a few years ago. It was a blast. I haven’t
had this much fun while losing in a long time! We had a table full of
veterans and we had no clue what to do! I ended up fifth, which wasn’t
bad considering I was down to my last $15000 at one point. Poor Dennis –
he had no luck and was the first bankruptcy. I always tell people the
reason to play WPS is to get to pay on the final table. 

As always the con ends for me with Slapshot. With Keith gone, John
Coussis stepped up for the reading of the rules and was a hit! Our table
is the Cabbies, Don and Jessica Greenwood. We had our usual good time
and I lost, as usual. Then it was off to bed. 

Sunday the 5th

Another WBC in the rearview mirror. Nicole wanted to play Bumper Car
Arena so I said my goodbyes and headed down the road. For the week I
made 8 finals, with 2 firsts, 3 seconds, a fourth and 2 fifths. Ah, what
could have been! Another great time. Thanks to all who made it
possible!!!


Joel A Tamburo  - Aug 15, 2007 11:29 pm (#25518 Total: 25535)  
Learning each day how much I don't know 	 

Fun at the WBC

Another WBC has passed, and I am in gaming withdrawal...

I arrived on Monday along with three others (my best friend and his son
and daughter). We drove up the day before from IL and had spent the
early day at Gettysburg. The hotel checkin went smoothly and quickly and
the room was nice. After we all got settled in it was badge time. 

As I also was a seminar presenter (co-host of the "Ethics in Gaming"
seminar) and a GM (Combat Commander), I wanted to let the staff know I
was onsite. Thus I headed down before my fellow travelers to get my
badge and GM stuff. As usual, everything went smoothly and I was all set
for action. 

Tuesday was a mix of being at the auction (I scored a mint copy of MMPs
A Victory Lost from the auction store) ang gaming. I got to playtest the
new version of Successors GMT is releasing (and I can say it represents
the best job of game tweaking I have ever seen). In addition, I got to
play very entertaining games of Atlantic Storm and Gangsters. 

Wednesday saw more gaming (played Galaxy, Combat Commander, The Kaisers
Pirates, Fire and Axe and a quick ASL scenario). Wednesday was also the
day for both the seminar mentioned above as well as the Mulligan round
for Combat Commander. The seminar did way better than either host
(Kaarin Engelmann and myself) expected, drawing 24 people who got right
into the discussion. I went right from there to GM Combat Commander,
where the Mulligan Round drew 26 players for a lot of exciting play. 

Thursday like Wednesday featured lots of gaming. I played more Atlantic
Storm, Galaxy and Combat Commander(a pickup game not a tournament). In
addition, I visited the Rio Grande demo area where I got to play a demo
of something called Guatamala Cafe. Finally I closed out the day by
playing in the second heat of Here I Stand (I was England and the
Ottomans won). 

Friday was the big day for me as GM, as Combat Commander was on the
plate all day long. All told we had 48 players in Combat Commander. I
played in three Combat Commander games as an eliminator to round out the
field (I lost every time, so playing me was like getting a bye). The
event was a blast, and my assistant GMs were outstanding. Also
outstanding was how well Combat Commander's ruleset stood up to the
test. I received no rules questions that were not quickly answerable by
reference to the rulebook. 

On Saturday I eased back a bit (as being the GM for six rounds of
continuous play on Friday had me a little punchy). I visited the vendor
area and acquired MMPs Red Star Rising. I also renewed my subscription
to ATO magazine. The vendors were well set up and all of the significant
wargame publishers were there, as well as Days of Wonder, Mayfair, Rio
Grande, Z-Man (I think) and Troll and Toad. At this point I thought I
would just settle down and maybe do a pickup game later. 

Little did I know that I was able to play in the semifinals for The
Kaiser's Pirates (I had qualified but in a fit of silliness I thought
the semis were Friday when I was occupied with Combat Commander). I was
speaking to one of my Combat Commander Assistant GMs from the previous
day when Andy Lewis and Rob Winslow came up and let me know it was time
to play The Kaiser's Pirates (I gather they decided to look for me
because they did not want to play the GM). Befuddled, surprised but
armed with a fresh cup of coffee I went with them. 

So, on a day when I figured I might not play in any tournament games I
was playing in the semis of The Kaiser's Pirates. It got stranger. I
advanced to the finals. Then it got really weird, I won the tournament.
I attribute it to really good coffee (if only I had that coffee when
playing Combat Commander the previous day). 

So with my newly won first place plaque I went back to the hotel room,
only to find out that: 

1) My best friend won the Galaxy Tournament 2) His son won the Juniors
Apples to Apples Tournament 3) His daughter won the Juniors Ticket to
Ride tournament 

I guess strangeness happens in bunches....

And so went another WBC. honestly, if you go to conventions to play
games, this is the place to go. Be it tournaments (where I met lots of
nice players, and really met no sharks) or open gaming, WBC is all about
gamers playing games and it shows. Add in the strong vendor area, superb
staffwork and the chummy atmosphere and to me it is a form of gaming
heaven.


Chris Palermo  - Aug 22, 2007 9:35 am (#25548 Total: 25550)  
www.libogroup.com 	 

SSB 2007 Recap

Once again, the Superstar Baseball tournament established new highs for
participation, as 40 managers signed up to try their hand at managing
the all-time greats. Changes to the format were universally cheered.
When the dust settled, more than 160 games had been played. 

Using the quality points system, Doug Galullo finished first, followed
closely by Bill Beckman and Devin Flawd. Bunched together from 4th to
8th were James Terry, Harry Flawd, Rich Moyer, Michael Lam and John
Coussis. Just missing the 8-team limit of playoff eligible were John
Welage and Roderick Lee. 

The new system – where players earn points for playing games, but then,
are sorted by winning percentage – worked equally to help and hurt
players. Terry Coleman, for instance, was on the cusp of playoff
eligible, but then, went on a massive losing spree (while simultaneously
playing other teams, also on the cusp). The net effect was that Harry
Flawd, who might otherwise have not even been included in the playoffs,
ended with a 10-8 record, while Terry ended at 7-7, without enough
points to advance. 

The eight teams were sorted, with the final order: 1) Beckman (Indians),
2) D. Flawd (Giants), 3) Coussis (Cubs), 4) Moyer (Red Sox), 5) Terry
(Athletics), 6) H. Flawd (Red Sox). Galullo, despite having the most
points, finished under .500 and was edged out by Harry Flawd. 

In the first game of the playoffs, Terry’s A’s took on Moyer’s Red Sox.
The game was a bloodbath, with the A’s scoring 4 times in the first
inning, off a Home Run Baker (what else?) homerun. Mark McGuire and
Reggie Jackson also added solo shots, and Catfish Hunter held the Red
Sox to two hits, as the A’s trampled the Red Sox 7-0. 

In the next game, Harry’s Red Sox took on the Cubs. The teams traded
runs in the first innings, on Carl Yastrzemski’s homer and the Cubs’
Hack Wilson’s sacrifice fly. However, the Red Sox bats came alive, and
by the 4th inning it was 6-1 Boston. The Cubs staged a brief comeback in
the 6th, narrowing the gap to 6-4, but the Red Sox closed strong, and
Roger Clemens continued pitching masterfully, and they took the game
9-5. 

The A’s marched on the face the #2 seed Giants, but, sadly, Catfish
Hunter was not eligible to pitch. The Giants chased starter Mike Norris
by the second inning, with 3 homers in the second (Mel Ott, Chief
Meyers, Gaylord Perry (the pitcher!)), In the 4th inning, Barry Bonds
flexed his andro-filled muscles to put the Giants up 7-0. The A’s bats
heated up, scoring 4 runs by the 7th inning, but the Giants were never
in danger, and won the game 9-4, earning a spot in the championship. 

Harry’s 6th seeded Red Sox faced a more daunting task, however, taking
on #1 seed Cleveland (which ended the regular season with a mark of
15-2). The Indians struck first, on a two-run shot by Jim Thome in the
second inning. Boston tied it up in the 5th, on a two-run homer by Wade
Boggs. Undaunted, the Indians seized the lead back in the bottom of the
inning, when Hal Trotsky blasted a solo shot, to give the Indians a 3-2
lead. But the Red Sox tied it in the top of the 8th inning, on a Carlton
Fisk double, and then, with two outs in the top of the ninth, Mo Vaughn
hit a single. Manager Flawd hesitated just for a minute, and then
pinch-ran for Vaughn. The pinch runner promptly stole second, where he
easily scored on Pete Runnels’ single. This managing move won the game
for the Red Sox, 4-3, as Luis Tiant held the Indians hitless in the
bottom of the ninth. 

So the championship was set. In an unprecedented event for the WBC,
Harry and Devin Flawd faced off in the finals of a sports simulation
game! <yawn> 

The Giants struck first, as Larry Doyle doubled in Chief Meyers in the
bottom of the second. Carlton Fisk tied the game in the top of the third
with a solo homerun, and then, Harry pinch-hit for starting pitcher
Dennis Eckersley (who lasted two innings). The Sox added two more runs
in the top of the 4th, and went into cruise mode, leading 3-1. Finally,
Larry Doyle cut the lead in half in the bottom of the 7th, with a solo
homerun. The Giants pitchers settled down, as well, allowing only one
hit and one walk from the 5th through 9th innings. In the bottom of the
ninth, pinch-hitter Roger Bresnahan doubled in Chief Meyers, to tie the
game, but John McGraw and Willie McCovey could not get Bresnahan home
for the win. In to Extra Innings! 

In the top of the 10th, Johnny Pesky’s single scored Carl Yastrzemski
after Yaz’ double. However, Willie May’s single scored Mel Ott in the
bottom of the 10th. In the 11th inning, Christy Mathewson had a little
more trouble. After striking out Pete Runnels to start the frame, he
allowed a single to Dom Dimaggio, a single to Carlton Fisk and walked
Babe Ruth. Dimaggio scored on Wade Boggs’ sacrifice fly. New pitcher
Ellis Kinder also flirted with disaster in the bottom of the 11th,
walking lead-off hitter John McGraw and walking Barry Bonds with one
out. But he quickly settled down, and retired Mel Ott and Will Clark,
giving the Red Sox a hard-earned 5-4 extra innings win, and giving Harry
Flawd a hat-trick in SuperStar Baseball first place plaques (having
previously won in 1998 and 2005). 

Harry definitely earned his plaque. He played (and won) most of his
final games to even be eligible, and then, as the 6th seeded team, he
played (and beat, on the road) in order, the #3 seed, #1 seed and #2
seed.