I’m glad I stumbled on this thread because I have been planning to ask questions about it myself. In the past, before the new rule, I have had a finals format in which the top finalist got to choose a bank rather than choosing every game. However, the available banks did not cover all the games in the venue (which is a large number of games). Instead I chose what I thought were three balanced games in each bank, e.g. one 90s game, one DMD-era game, one LCD-era game. We have a relatively small number of 90s games, so the banks did not include every possible game in the venue. With the new rule, I had one of the locals tell me that I am required to have the banks include every game in the venue as I can’t limit player choice during finals. So just for one last piece of clarfication and so I can tell this to the person who is likely to bring an objection…
Can I choose banks ahead of time that are “balanced” in order to have games for different eras, but which do NOT include every game in the venue? (E.g., four banks of three games, in a venue that has 30+ games)
If not, can I require players to choose “one from column A, one from column B, one from column C” when A might have a relatively limited number of games in it? (I’m thinking of the 90s games in our venue, which are much less numerous than the DMD and LCD games.) That way all games are “available for choice” but choice is still limited.
It sounds like either is allowed as long as I don’t claim the reason is because a particular game is “long playing,” although to be honest it’s going to be hard to be sure I’m not biased in this direction in choosing the banks in case A). After all, no less a philosopher than Immanuel Kant said that none of us ever can truly be certain of our own motives, when multiple incentives are present.
I have the same question about games in a bank (EM, SS, DMD, LCD). I have a mini-pinburgh tourney in the works and it all falls apart if players can’t pick an entire bank as-is.
I would refer to @BMU and @pinwizj post above, if the banks are mean to represent the overall games available during qualifying and not made only to exclude long playing game for the sake of time then it should be fine.
Many events this year have involved picking banks of 3 from a subset of all games used in qualifying; District 82 does this on a regular basis, using only games in the back two aisles for playoffs for logistical reasons. In some events, you chose any 3 games in the subset; in others, you chose a set of three “consecutive” games, i.e. game X plus the one to the right of it plus the one two to the right of it. And some events do specify one new, one mid-age and one old, like the IFPA championship itself. You don’t have to do “one of A, one of B and one of C” from what I’ve seen, that’s just one allowable option.
Also note that just because games A-B-C-D were together in the same bank in qualifying in a Pinburgh-like format, you don’t need to keep those same 4 games together for the playoffs. Use common sense and you should be fine.
Thanks. I heard from someone that someone told them that they could not exclude any game from finals choice that was used in qualifying and therefore creating specific banks would be disallowed. I found this hard to believe and I’m glad it’s not actually true. I guess there’s some misunderstanding of the rules going around.
There is definitely at least a hint of the odor of fish here, but It’s possible they were all fixed overnight and/or were having transient, non-reproducible issues.
Interesting Flippin Friday tournament had mixed qualifying 1 modern 1 classic and then for finals it’s all classics, I asked if this was in danger of breaking this ifpa rule and was given the response “it’s okay because it was planned all classics in advance”
"Most commonly done in an effort to speed an event up, we have seen TD’s increase the usage of Classics machines as an event progresses as Classics machines often finish quicker than Modern machines. The IFPA expects TD’s to maintain consistency throughout the entire event with respect to the types of machines that are available to be played. Any efforts made to alter the game availability list anytime during an event in such a way that it materially changes the mix of machines that was present at the start of the event will no longer earn TGP after the point at which this change is made. For example, having an event that requires players to play Modern and Classics machines, which then materially decreases or eliminates the amount in which Modern (or Classics) machines are used at some point in the event would trigger this rule. Please contact the IFPA if you have any questions regarding how this rule impacts your event.”
to reduce ambiguity, this should probably be changed to “any planned or ad-hoc efforts made to alter the games available for play in an event” or something along those lines. “anytime during an event” might be misconstrued as “planning for classics finals is okay, you just have to make sure it’s announced beforehand”
From my understanding of the latest iteration of the rule, removing one game because it’s being particularly long is actually totally fine as long as the general mix of games is maintained ?
The rule isn’t even about “time” anymore as much as is it’s about maintaining consistency of the mix of games being used throughout the tournament. Materially changing that mix will trigger this rule.
What’s “material”? That will be handled on a case-by-case basis, so just shoot us an email about your situation and we’ll talk through it on our side.
