|
GM Barbara Flaxington and her four
finalists. |
Advancing by the book ...
One of the most common mistakes made by GMs of multi-player
games is to worry excessively about having enough slots to accomodate
all who wish to advance (usually referred to as "win and
you're in". In reality. the far more common problem is what
to do when there are not enough qualifiers present to fill the
defined optimum number of slots for the next level. Spelling
out all such scenarios in advance in the event preview is the
only way to solve this problem quickly and fairly and is well
worth the extra effort.
Castles of Burgundy returned for its sophomore year
at WBC. Attendance was down a bit from last year (nine and eight
tables in the two heats, compared with ten each in 2013), but
remained popular. The preferred 4-player games were almost exclusively
conducted, only one 3-player game proving necessary in the heats.
Unfortunately, the numbers did not work out nearly as well for
the semifinal as only 11 qualifiers (and three alternates) made
an appearance. The initial thought was to reduce the semifinal
field to 12 players (to allow all 4-player games) with the best
runner-up advancing to the Final. However, one of the alternates
objected to this plan, appropriately noting that the field was
originally intended to be 16 players for the semifinal. Control
was then turned over to the assistant GM's (Chris Moffa and Steve
Cameron) who had both already qualified for the semifinal to
make a determination as the GM was an alternate who would be
directly affected by this decision. The GM would not advance
in the field of top 12 players, but would do so if the semifinal
were to include all the alternates present. The assistant GM's
came up with a very equitable plan to advance all 14 qualifiers
and alternates, with the highest ranking individuals allowed
first choice of whether they wished to play in a 3- versus 4-player
game. 3-player games were selected by a small majority, presumably
due to the desire for fewer opponents with consequently more
willingness to accept a greater luck element. In the future,
the option to reduce the field to 12 players (based upon turnout)
will be clearly specified. 4-player games are considered preferable
in the opinion of this GM as all the tiles are utilized. In a
3-player game, random ones are eliminated which affects availability
and power of the bonus tiles, thus increasing the luck element.
The importance of checking the semifinal to see if it is possible
to gain entry with a runner-up finish in the heats was again
underscored as there was opportunity for additional alternates
to play.
The standard boards were used for the initial heats to make
the game more accessible to beginner players. Random advanced
boards were the default for the semifinal and Final. Board #8
was officially disallowed due to a thread noted on Boardgame
Geek last year which showed an advantage (unusually high winning
percentage) associated with this board. Players were given the
option of choosing either board type (standard or random) provided
everyone at the table agreed. The majority of tables ended up
playing with the standard boards. Statistics compiled this year
were actually surprisingly similar to those obtained last year.
Of the advanced boards used, none appeared especially powerful
as there was a heathy variety in the winners. High scores to
achieve victory in the preliminary rounds ranged from 275 (interestingly
by the ultimate tournament champion as also occurred in 2013)
to 218 points. In the 12 games played with the standard boards,
the same trend was noticed in starting player order differential,
with Seat 2 again seeming to be the most advantageous (winning
41.2% of the time, in comparison to 16.7% for Seat 1, 16.7% Seat
3, and 25% Seat 4). The sample size obviously remains too small
for any definitive conclusions, but intriguing nonetheless and
data can continue to be collected to see if this pattern persists
over time.
The Final had a very close finish and top score changed hands
amongst all the players during the earlier rounds with no clear
victor until the very end. Robert took an early lead by closing
three areas in the first round. The eventual winner (Keith) made
a big comeback (from 86-151 points) in the fourth round largely
by completing an eight building area. This accomplishment was
even more impressive given that he did not possess the tile which
allowed duplicate buildings in the same area. Unfortunately for
Nick, in the last round Keith also took the one tile available
he needed to legally complete a six-building area. Player order
was important throughout the game, particularly to collect specific
tiles and bonuses. Silverlings were readily spent to obtain additional
tiles. Domenic scored the most bonus points at the end (37 compared
to 24 by Keith and 16 by Nick and Robert), but not enough to
close the gap as he had been last on the scoretrack (Keith 187,
Robert 186, Nick 180, and Domenic 163). The final scores were
Keith 216, Robert 206, Dominic and Nick 204. The tie was broken
between Dominic and Nick utilizing the German version of the
rules as indicated in the event description. Dominic had the
most empty estate spaces (nine versus eight for Nick). Overall,
the Final proved to be an extremely tight match between four
talented players who nonetheless maintained a high degree of
sportsmanship over the course of play.
|