Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!

hammond

I’m not sure it’s my place to post my opinion, but here goes…

These are two of the best players in Axis history! It’s really good for the game and our ever small community to see these Titans meet in the tourney again.
To hear that Louis has been banned in the next tourney really sucks. However, in reading his own post, it appears he must have said some really bad things that are not acceptable in the tourney or lobby play. For his part, he acknowledges that and admits to being unsportsmanlike. Unfortunately this would lead to disqualification. All indications are that Bayder acted appropriately.

I, for one would like to see these guys meet in the next tourney (TOC 15). Since Louis publicly displayed his oversight, wouldn’t a “warning” be reasonable this time and banning as options if he further demonstrated unsportsmanlike behavior including time delays?

As far as the game goes:

In this situation, due to consequences of the decision, was Louis given the opportunity to redo his buy? Kudos to Louis for being creative and seeing different ways of making plays and a case can be made to back up his argument.
My interpretation on reading the rules is that fighters may land on “friendly” ACs after combat. Fighters are allowed to in-essence “fly from land” to newly built ACs even if the ACs are placed in hostile territory (which is what Louis did exactly per-the rules), so the intent of the rule makers is clear in my opinion, that fighters may land on any carrier open to them after the combat phase.
It appears that the software coding might be in error when it forces fighters on friendly carriers to fight or flight, hence the “cargo” rule.
Louis claims to have a 95% winning chance. I don’t see it that high unless it was against me then 95% would be low. It would be a long game as it seems it’s really in a build and hold pattern, but anything can happen. My thinking leads me to believe that in order for Moscow to fall, Japan would have to do the bulk of the fighting therefore leaving a void that USA would quickly fill to either liberate Moscow or take Asia. Obviously, Louis wouldn’t let that happen. So in a game like this, I would think the Allies have a slight advantage in that the Suez could be the Achilles heal of Japan as USA would be in a position to secure the canal. Admittedly though, these are really good players so I’m too humble to state a final outcome or % and both see the game according to their goals.

I’ve played Louis back in the GTO days and never heard a bad thing about him. So it saddens me to see one of my Alumn players in this situation albeit one that he let get out of hand with “verbal abuse” . Understandable that he might be upset with the ruling, but once all the dust settles, he’ll probably realize that he should have just accepted it and try to win the game…incredibly good player.

One thing more to add here:

My experiences here have shown that Tourney admins have been fair, unbiased, and trustworthy. Call-outs for Prastle and Deltium and many others. I appreciate their hard work and dedication to keeping up the site for us normal fellas.

hammond

epinikion

@LouisXIVXIV
hey Louis,
your point "location of units" is nothing i forgot in my evaluation. But even if moscow falls, what needs more than we see now at the board, it will be costly and there are so many ways to continue for allies with the Med in USA-Control. I played really a lot of games after the fall of moscow (if it ever happens here). So i still think your saying "this is 95% axis" is not at the level this great game was played. I think you know the meaning of med-control because all the rule conflict is about med-control.

This is still my point of view,
epi

LouisXIVXIV

I'm happy to take a deep dive with you, Epi, but the forum probably isn't the right place for it. I a;so don't want presume on your interest either... but if you really wnat to talk nuts and bolts happy to do that tomorrow some time.

epinikion

Hey Louis, i think the forum is ready for a deep dive because the forum was told by a TOC-finalist that this is a 95% axis win(adding the file). Please let us all know, why this is a 95% axis win even if you will take - for what costs!- moscow...

I really think you underestimate this forum, Louis. Same time i am interested in your reasons and interests.

epi

bayder

Louis claims I misrepresented him when I indicated he would not accept the ruling and keep playing. I'll just post his email response here, and let people judge for themselves.

The idea that UK gets to choose whether or not to STAY & ATTACK, STAY AND NOT ATTACK, or LEAVE is wrong. That's an arbitrary hypothesis with no support in the book (in fact it goes against everything in the book), and generating this "out" to insure those options is just not Axis and Allies revised. The book specifically addresses this situation by saying that units beginning in a hostile space MUST attack or exit -- they cannot hide; in fact there is no situation ever in the game in which units are allowed to hide - when they are cargo they simply do not fire and they die. I mean it's specifically addressed -- at least Bayder had a loophole -- you know a narrow logical possibility he was trying to squeeze a train of camels through. This is just pure bullshit. My move divides the allied force - there is no way around it. The game design includes the move, whether you like that or not. Imagine he had a British battleship instead -- I mean I don't know your quarrel, but it's not rules based. This ruling is wrong and seems corrupt.

I spent all that time shutting down Bayder's specious and I believe disingenuous argument, only to be confronted with this garbage argument. I'm interested in playing Axis and Allies revised. Not Triple A coder potluck with "Louis is an ass" for creative inspiration. Normally, I would just beat Bayder anyway and take this as a handicap - I like those sorts of challenges and if you've been following me on GTO and Triple A you would also know that I don't incline to drama. But this is pure bullshit, and it rewards Bayder's dishonorable conduct and I won't be a part of it.

Formally my position is this: if you do not disqualify me for "rudeness" or whatever, and I am to finish the tourney, I will not recognize the legitimacy of this game when it is coupled with the ruling you've just made unless the German naval purchase can be edited to 32 German IPCS, leaving the fighters in cauc. You may judge the game from it's current place when that change is made, and I will participate, providing battle plans etc. But I will not continue the game even with that edit, and I will not recognize judgment of the game without it, even if the judgment is in my favor. I am winning this game at at least an 80% level, even after you hypothetically remove the german fleet and fighters from the board with an edit; I consider myself favored at above 95%, and I can scarcely imagine a way Bayder wins this game.

Finally, I also will not begin the next game (as my win is not in doubt) until the matter of this rule is resolved in a more elevated way. The ruling is wrong. I would need to see those pages to be persuaded, even if it wouldn't be appropriate in the middle of the game. The ruling is not a book rule and I will not agree to it unless I can be persuaded I am wrong.

Louis

LouisXIVXIV

Are we gonna start posting? I have some things to post!!

This was my initial reply. Prastle later persuaded me that the ruling was not a kangaroo court but an honest determination and I accepted the ruling.

Bayder is continuing to lie as usual.

bayder

I guess I was not part of the email or chat chain where you accepted the ruling, Louis.

bayder

If you did accept the ruling, then that's great, this is the first I'd heard that. I'd be happy to one day continue our game in J17 with the fair ruling in effect. Then we don't need to continue the forum debate on who might have won.

LouisXIVXIV

What a decision tree. Should I just open the floodgates here and spill all the dirty laundry? I will hold - for now.

In reply, I will say that I was told by Prastle that you refused to play because you had been insulted. That was the key. He was negotiating with me about rebuy, etc; and then abruptly he informed me that you would not play no matter what because you were insulted. Disqualification followed shortly.

LouisXIVXIV

@LouisXIVXIV said in Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!:

Disqualification followed shortly.

Epi what you wrote made me smile. I suppose we can do it here if you like - but tomorrow. I need to take a break from this.

LaFayette

Louis, while I find what you have written here constructive, this comment is not:

Fuck you and your bullshit vacuous arguments, your wannabe certitude and expertise and your false bravado and intimidation. You sir, are chalk full of bullshit and I for one am not impressed. That's my interpretation of your passive-aggressive and fickle themes.

Personally if sent to me, I'm not sure how I could continue in good faith to play against such an opponent. TripleA is meant to be fun, such an atmosphere becomes poisoned with that kind of response.

I regret that an obscure game ruling caused you issues in a game, it is disappointing and not a fun outcome. Be what that may, resorting to that tone/atmosphere is the reason for the disqualification. If you'd like to continue discussing the game rules, please open a new thread to discuss it - it is quite interesting, but should not be continued here.

LouisXIVXIV

Full court admin press for out of context e-mail excerpts!

You make it sound like Bayder was just walking on water when I sent that. It's an invitation to me to put Bayder publicly on trial as to whether or not this was warranted -- because it begs the question, why would would I write this to him? I'm not going to do that to him publicly right now.

But you presumed Bayder was an angel and you presumed this outburst was about the rule in question it seems. That's false. I admit the conduct was unsportsmanlike and that I shouldn't have snapped; but there was provocation. We don't talk about that though because Bayder's my buddy, he works here, and Louis, well, I never liked him, right Prastle?

prastle

@LouisXIVXIV I refuse to discuss the long winded many emails that were received. many were posted and talked about in the bunker. a ruling will be applied to the next toc as I stated many times. perhaps even an engine change. either way I attempted to allow this game to continue! I failed! end of story

LouisXIVXIV

I'm not contesting the result Prastle. I'm simply speaking in the forum against various slanders. I was disqualified for "verbal abuse". You've now publicly posted that verbal abuse. It wasnt about the ruling, other than my tone in that regard. I'm just speaking in the forum...

prastle

@LouisXIVXIV well as @LaFayette said and a few other mods lets discuss this elsewhere

bayder

For the record, I have no issue with any of my emails being posted. Post the entire email chains if you wish so the truth can be out there.

Also for the record, Louis, you never agreed to continue playing at J17 with the fair ruling applied. Prastle confirmed this. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it and prove prastle a liar (might as well accuse him of lying, as you've continuously accused me).

In your email which I posted, you made it clear that your only acceptable solution was getting a G17 do-over because the ruling went against you.

prastle

@bayder He has already been paid for second place and you as first This war is DONE! WE SHALL MOVE ON !

prastle

@prastle side note who was third guys ?

epinikion

@prastle i think @polarole is clearly 3rd

Cernel

@LaFayette said in Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!:

If you'd like to continue discussing the game rules, please open a new thread to discuss it - it is quite interesting, but should not be continued here.

I concur, but, just to add what is merely my opinion, I actually believe it would be quite pointless discussing any of this anywhere in this forum, since the rulebook is arguably unclear on any of the points at hand, and could be interpreted and argued upon in a number of ways.