Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: MrMiYoda on September 14, 2009, 09:10:24 PM
-
Below's a link to an official announcement by Rob:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17895.msg284286#msg284286 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17895.msg284286#msg284286)
Rob may revise the rules as he wishes based on further valid suggestions, and so always stay in touch.
THE RULES FOR PRE-CACTUS-APPROVED SANCTIONED TOURNEYS (thus far):
1. Only Local tournaments are eligible for the Pre-Cactus-Approved tourney program.
2. Pre-Cactus-Approved tourneys are limited to 1 per month per group.
3. All paperwork/payments for previous Pre-Cactus-Approved tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed.
4. A maximun number of Pre-Cactus-Approved tournaments is 6 per season/per playgroup.
5. Pre-Cactus-Approved tournaments done between May 1st and Nationals are not cosidered sanctioned and official, thus no retroactive promo or prize support.
6. All Pre-Cactus-Approved tourney paperwork must be turned in by May 15th at the latest or else they are not eligible for promos, prize support and RNRS points.
7. Hosts must print their own forms (winner list, sign in sheet, tournament application) and mail these back with check or money order. No faxes, e-mails or credit cards.
8. Hosts must have already hosted at least 2 sanctioned Locals and 1 sanctioned District to be eligible for the Pre-Cactus-Approved tourney program.
May I add, therefore, that hosts can advance any promos, winner cards, and prizes (i.e. booster packs and/or Redemption cash) as they are available. Cactus will, after Pre-Cactus-Approved tourney are approved, mail hosts their retroactive promos and prize support.
GODBLESS ALL!
-
The biggest bonus is Cactus would know exactly how many cards to send for promos. Many times I've had a weekend that was available for many players but I didn't know it until the week before. Doing a tourney then getting the rest of the paper work done later would be nice at times.
-
I'm all for this if it could work out for Rob. There are a lot of times that I could host a tournament if I didn't have to send in notice many weeks in advance. Being at a school, I have students often that would love to play. But working around their schedules for everything else makes it quite tricky to plan far enough out.
I definitely think that the big summer tourneys (State, Regional, and Nationals) should have to be announced far in advance. However, I'm not sure that it is as important for local and district level events.
-
I agree this would be a nice alternative. Being involved in a card store weekly, we have times when we could host a tournament when other games are taking the week off (i.e. Friday nights, Saturday and Sundays). This would be a great way to let established hosts hold more tournaments when time allows rather than planning out six weeks in advance.
-
I think this is an amazing idea. I totally support it.
-
I think if this was established, it should be minimum of either two weeks or 10 days. One week seems a bit too short, because if something happens and you don't get the promos, that would look bad.
I think this could be an option for maybe the first tourney a host in a certain area could do, but after the first time, you should follow the six week rule.
Eric "don't know what to put here" Largent
-
I think if this was established, it should be minimum of either two weeks or 10 days. One week seems a bit too short, because if something happens and you don't get the promos, that would look bad.
I don't really get this. I thought that the host had to provide their own prize/promo support at first, and then wait for Cactus to restock them afterward. If this is the case, then the players would all get their cards already, and the host would be the only one at risk. This ensure that they kept their tournament up to a standard that they are confident that Cactus would support.
I think this could be an option for maybe the first tourney a host in a certain area could do, but after the first time, you should follow the six week rule.
This makes less sense to me. I see this as being really helpful to hosts, why make it limited to a one-time thing?
Eric "don't know what to put here" Largent
This makes the least sense of all. How can the guy who I can always depend on for something witty and creative in his signature come up blank. Who are you and what did you do with the real Eric Largent.
Prof "not an impostor" Underwood
-
Im am loving the responses so far! Blessings to all!.
If we could make this work and with the strictect standards expected from hosts, then Rob might consider the idea and impose it sooner than we think.
My prayerful feeling is that the proposed practice would be win win for all.
More thinktank?
Godbless!
-
I think Roy should move to Florida.
-
great idea!
ps, what does thinktank mean? lol
-
A thinktank is a thread to get ideas on an idea. Literally, a think tank. Think lots of thought fish in an forum aquarium.
-
Also, I like the idea. I'm wiith NWJosh about the promos, I never really know who can show up to tournaments until the week before, since we don't have one unified playgroup.
-
Ya this has some real benefits to it. Granted I don't think hosts should make a habit of this every week, but it would be nice to know that if 10 members of my play group all said they were wanting to play a tourney the next week that I could put one together and still get it sanctioned. I do agree that Regionals and states must be atleast 6 weeks in advance. I wouldn't even mind saying Districts need 2 weeks of notice for advertisement sake, with prizes coming after the tourney so things don't have to be expressed shipped. Locals are "layed back" enough where I think this could be helpful in getting hosts to run more tourneys. Plus if I know I had 15 players at a tourney then Cactus only has to send me that amount of promos and prizes. The biggest upside to this is I can fax results in meaning Cactus doesn't have to spend a penny on return costs for paper work and extra promos. This could cut some costs to cactus as well as encourage hosts to run more events.
-
I think Roy should move to Florida.
Tim, I wish Florida was 20 minutes away. I'd make sure to lure you into having a Local or District tourney in Disneyland. Seriously, could we make that happen in case I went there and this proposal pushes through? Like almost impromptu tourney with your playgroup?
-
The biggest upside to this is I can fax results in meaning Cactus doesn't have to spend a penny on return costs for paper work and extra promos. This could cut some costs to cactus as well as encourage hosts to run more events.
Well said, Josh!
Fax would be the next best thing to an original-filled-in form. Cactus could post the results in a jiffy. Cactus can still require snail mail for the original results sheet for filing. I guess both procedures can work well.
I'm inspired by this exchange of ideas from my Redemption® family.
Godbless!
-
I'd make sure to lure you into having a Local or District tourney in Disneyland. Seriously, could we make that happen in case I went there and this proposal pushes through? Like almost impromptu tourney with your playgroup?
Absolutely. Reservations for Mickey's Retreat may require advance notice, but if they have free space we could try to snatch it up. Of course, I was assuming you meant outside the actual parks, otherwise the tournament fees would be around $80 per person. ;)
-
I'm sure if you have Captured Ark as a promo people would still come :).
-
I'm sure if you have Captured Ark as a promo people would still come :).
At a District, for example, I'm actually planning to take all my various District Promos and let players choose which one they want. When I submit final results plus the request for winner and promo cards, I might be able to ask Cactus for any District promo that I need that Cactus would approve of giving me in exchange for the number of promos that I had given away.
Of course, CA would be a strong promo choice, I agree. ;)
-
I would think as a host this would be a great idea. Has anyone brought it up to Rob yet? There are many times that I have found out last minute that we could get a group together, and there are other times where advertised tournaments have yielded 3 or 4 people...
-
I would think as a host this would be a great idea. Has anyone brought it up to Rob yet? There are many times that I have found out last minute that we could get a group together, and there are other times where advertised tournaments have yielded 3 or 4 people...
I totally agree with Ken that I've had tourneys advertised and only had 3 or 4 players but been able to put together an afternoon of playing and have 20. This could give smaller playgroups more oppurtunities to have tourneys with a larger number of players attending then usual. Hosts still will have to pay the fees so that aspect of it wouldn't change for cactus.
-
Of course, CA would be a strong promo choice, I agree. ;)
I was referring to YMT's post. People would be willing to pay any entry fee to get a Captured Ark. Sorry for being unclear ::).
Although it'd be awesome if Cactus let you do the district switch. Thats a really smart idea; a win-win for everyone.
-
I had not voiced it officially, but I also agree that this a great idea. I think we will indeed see the number of participants for certain tourneys increase as a result of short-notice get-togethers.
As some have stated, there needs to be limits to the use of this system, since advertised tourneys allow for advanced planning and give time for new players to "discover" tourneys in their area. But there are obvious merits to short-notice tourneys that will likely increase the number of tourneys and, ultimately, spread the game.
I was referring to YMT's post. People would be willing to pay any entry fee to get a Captured Ark.
.... and they get to ride the Jungle Cruise and meet Mickey! ;D
-
Wow, I read this thread and dismissed it at first, but then I thought about it.... what a great idea! I think this is an awesome idea... with the way that things go around here at times, this would have saved us a lot of headaches and allowed us to host a lot more tourneys. I think this idea rocks. :)
~Marti
-
I like the idea of not having to wait 5 weeks to have a tournament. I believe that it would be a bit difficult for those of us who do not have play groups and that tournaments sporaticlly.
-
I really like the idea, but I don't know what that means for Rob.
Maybe you can have a "retroactive" tournament for an extra fee, or if you waive RNRS points.
Or maybe you print your own winner sheet and sign-in sheet from the Cactus page, and mail that at your own expense, and he mails you the exact number of promos and prize packs. This option seems best to me.
-
I think this sounds like a good idea, as long as it does not put a larger burden on Rob. I think there should also be a deadline so that players don't try and do a bunch of "short notice" tournaments during the major tournament (States/Regionals) season so they can rack up RNRS points before Nationals.
-
Or maybe you print your own winner sheet and sign-in sheet from the Cactus page, and mail that at your own expense, and he mails you the exact number of promos and prize packs. This option seems best to me.
Thank you!
We eagerly await Rob's post and how he might initiate an experiment out of all our ideas as soon as possible. I'm confident it's win-win for the bottom line for Cactus and it's win-win for existing playgroups who wish to expand quicker.
I encourage all other hosts to share their inputs if you haven't done so yet.
Godbless all!
-
Personally, I also like this idea. The only reservation I would have about it would be the promos. I certainly don't have 10 of a particular promo just lying around that I can give to everyone who would show up. So would I just keep a list of everyone who showed up then send them a promo when Rob sent me the promos for the tournament?
-
I think there should also be a deadline so that players don't try and do a bunch of "short notice" tournaments during the major tournament (States/Regionals) season so they can rack up RNRS points before Nationals.
My 2 cents on this is to apply the rule that the proposed system be effective initially only for Local tourney level, and case-to-case basis on District level. Since the main purpose anyway is to gain more tournaments and improve player base, I'd be more than happy to host a Local tourney involving between 10-15 players, and deem it as a District if all of a sudden around 20 players attend. I guess Cactus can make a final judgment whether or not to validate a District depending majorly on attendance. I suggest that if tourney attendance (assuming honest count) is less than 10 (?), that it should be declared a Local. Just my thoughts.
More thinktank?
Godbless!
-
I certainly don't have 10 of a particular promo just lying around that I can give to everyone who would show up. So would I just keep a list of everyone who showed up then send them a promo when Rob sent me the promos for the tournament?
Your ideas are well taken. I myself would, say, gather my various (different) District promos and let players pick their preference. If a card of preference runs out, I can then keep a list of those cards and redeem them from Cactus.
Godbless!
-
My thought is also how do you prevent fraud? Could not someone with money to waste and obsession for winning not just send in several apps at the end of the year all at once with the dough just to climb the stats?
-
An easy way to keep from someone trying to pile stats at the end of the tourney season is to limit these types of tourneys to one per month, and all paper work had to be send in with in a week of the tourney occuring. This encourages that hosts still plan tourneys in advance but also have the freedom to put a last second tourney together if the option arises. I'm not sure about having districts ran like this but I do like the idea of maybe saying there would have to be atleast 12 to 15 minimum players attending in order to have a "last second" district.
-
Another way to fix that is to only allow them to be locals. And remember, you can only have points from 5 locals and 2 districts (I think?)
~Marti
-
From the perspective of a host with an existing playgroup I think this is a great idea. From a Cactus standpoint, what extra work does this create for Rob? I think that's the real determining factor.
I believe there would need to be restrictions on hosting an impromptu tournament:
- Local tournaments only
- Limit of one per month
- No impromptu tournaments May-July (when State/Regionals take place)
- Hosts are still limited to one (replacement) promo*
*Presently Rob only offers 1 unique promo card per tournament (ex: Goshen). Even if the host was giving out a variety of the available local promos I don't know how realistic it is to expect Rob to replenish exactly what you gave out (ex: Esther, Joab, Sampson and Panic Demon). If I were able to choose a variety pack from all available promos I'd be more inclined to host an impromptu tournament than a scheduled tournament and I don't think we want to encourage that.
-
The promo would be easier for me because I would give out the promos when they arrived from cactus. I see my players every week and sometimes twice a week so getting them there promos would be easy. I think this may be a bit easier on cactus from time to time because I wouldn't need to have the items sent to me right away. The tourney was already done so when Rob got around to it would be fine with me.
-
- Local tournaments only
- Limit of one per month
- No impromptu tournaments May-July (when State/Regionals take place)
- Hosts are still limited to one (replacement) promo*
+1 with all these limitations.
-
On the surface, I like the idea, however, I have one concern
These would, in effect, be "closed" tournaments open only to those in the know. Because of this, only local tournaments would be eligible. My concern is that you could potentially get a small group (even 2 or 3 people) have a bunch of small tournaments and spam the RNRS. So my thoughts would be:
1) Only Local tournaments would be eligible
2) These would be limited to 1 per month per group
3) all paperwork/payment for previous tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
5) None of these tournaments between May 1st and Nationals
6) all paperwork must be turned in by May 15th or they are not eligible
or course it is ultimately all up to Rob
in Him
Chris
-
I agree with Chris and I support it if it helps Rob and Cactus.
My personal opinion is that it would be great for the NW due to the constantly changing inclement weather and mountains. As NWJosh pointed out earlier, sometimes we know one week we will have nice weather and most of the players are available for a tournament. Everyone in the NW knows that planning something 6 weeks in advance anywhere in the NW is laughable, especially during the school year, and mostly during the winter.
-
On the surface, I like the idea, however, I have one concern
These would, in effect, be "closed" tournaments open only to those in the know. Because of this, only local tournaments would be eligible. My concern is that you could potentially get a small group (even 2 or 3 people) have a bunch of small tournaments and spam the RNRS. So my thoughts would be:
1) Only Local tournaments would be eligible
2) These would be limited to 1 per month per group
3) all paperwork/payment for previous tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
5) None of these tournaments between May 1st and Nationals
6) all paperwork must be turned in by May 15th or they are not eligible
or course it is ultimately all up to Rob
in Him
Chris
I completely agree with these and as Scott stated sometimes its impossible to plan tourneys in advance all the time. This last winter was a perfect example as the NW got hit with a long stretch of ice and snow and we were unable to do alot of traveling even with in the same city.
Putting limitations and guildlines for this idea is necesarry, but I still like the idea alot.
-
I was just recently made aware of this topic. Ironically, I was planning an "unofficial" tournament because my wife is due any day now and I can't plan out 6 weeks ahead for the next several months. I was going to give prizes to everybody (which I typically do anyway because I want everyone to get better.) What does this mean for Cactus? They temporarily don't get my business because of "life."
That is why I like this idea. "Life" can happen, and I can still support Cactus and encourage my playgroup with new cards. Much like, I think NWJon said it, I don't have the promos to support my group. However, they are patient and I see them frequently, so I would give them their promo/prizes when the support arrived.
Another advantage, we are trying to get new players to host. One of my teens is intrigued with this because of another thread. However, he doesn't have the money upfront. This would give NEW hosts a chance to get their feet wet without the burden of shelling out the money first. At least, for my group, a delayed payment with immediate results would give them more boldness to host.
As for it being a "closed" local, I know who lives close to me and I have all their emails or I can PM them on the boards. It would just take a little extra initiative on the hosts part to contact those people.
Finally, I have liked several of the guidelines so far that have been laid down by some wise and experienced hosts. This can be made to work. Are there people who will try to cheat the system? Probably, there usually are, but I would like to think that my extra business would cover that negative factor.
But what do I know, I'm just a noob.
-
I would have been able to host tournaments last year if this suggestion had been an option. My sister-in-law passed away 2 months ago after battling breast cancer for 3 years. This past year and a half has been rough on my wife and me. We made at least a dozen flights to New york to visit with her. Frequently, my wife and I did not know 6 weeks ahead when we would be called to her bedside. This prevented me from knowing with any certainty when I would be available to host a tournament. The result was that, with exception of a local or two, no tournaments were held in the South Central Region last year, and a player base was not added to, either.
I am pleased to report that we still have a number of Texas players ready and able to resume playing tournaments. Having this as an option can only help us out here in Texas.
-
I agree with most of the sentiments here. Bany made a good point- these would be "closed" tournaments, considering they would be invite only, and therefore could only be locals anyway.
Also, another thought I have is that maybe we should set a minimum number of players in the tournament to call it official, for example, we say there has to be at least 5. For most all of our playgroups, that number isn't a stretch. Then you don't have spammers saying "hey, we played all open events all day, just me and my friend/sibling/roommate/dog." (except the slobber may make TexP have some issues there... lol)
The limit of 5-6 "impromptu" tournaments a season sounds very fair, so once again, no point spamming. :)
No impromptu tournaments after May 1st. I have a random thought to throw in here, and if it gets shot down, it's cool. I know that sometimes I get together with my friends from my playgroup more frequently in the summer, especially now that we don't all live in Shippensburg. This is probably the case for some other playgroups too. Would there possibly be a way to say maybe you're allowed 1 during those months, and the points count toward the next season, and you're allowed to turn in the results after Nationals? Once again, just a thought, I could be totally off base with that idea.
I could see this giving Cactus a big boost, because I know tournaments definitely help with revenue there.
I'm glad that I could give a more intelligent answer than my earlier post: I'm fighting a cold and my knee's still buggin me, so I'm not totally here mentally. :)
In His Love,
Marti
-
This idea would be a great help for us Fresnians. It is very difficult to know when the playgroup will be away with some school/family activity (especially since two of them are PK and their family is always busy). It's also difficult to know when I'll be busy (since stuff just seems to keep popping up). I'm with ya all who don't have a lot of extra promos (though I have some left over from my past two tournaments (since I'm also my playgroup's storehouse/deck creator)) however I also see most of my playgroup quite frequently so I too can just pass them out when I get them (or, like most time, keep them if it doesn't fit into their decks :)). I think it would also help Cactus in the fact that they know exactly how many promos to send out (since last time I estimated over ten and only three showed up :().
One thing I would change with Marti's suggestion is the limit of people. For all of us with smaller playgroups, just missing three people would disqualify us from an official tournament. I was thinking that, since the top RNRS people seem to be able to get the points nicely already, maybe we can have it where you must have a certain number of players to earn the RNRS (that way, if we only have three people show up (excluding the judge since they can’t play anyways), we can still have an official tournament with promos and prizes but they won’t receive any RNRS points for winning (considering that the top people are already in good size playgroups). This would still encourage playgroups that have small numbers that are somewhat inconsistent in attendance to still host official tournaments and reward the people who actually showed up (I’m not bitter about my last tournament (all but one had good reasons why they couldn’t make it at the last minute), I just want to make sure the people who do show up are rewarded).
Also with Marti’s summer suggestion, maybe if there is a regulation that states that if the impromptu tournament falls on the same calendar week as another higher tournament, then it will be automatically rejected as an official tournament (for State tournaments, we can include the state it’s in plus the surrounding states tournaments).
Other than that, I completely agree with the other regulations to these types of tournament (once a month, black out dates between May-Nationals, etc). If this was implemented right now, I would have a local going in two weeks (since we were planning on meeting anyways).
God Bless
-
I just wanted to quickly address the concern about "closed" tournaments. I know for me, I was thinking about planning events on a few week's notice, rather than 6 weeks. I would still announce my tournaments here on the boards, and at churches & bookstores. These "short-notice" tourneys do not need to be "same-day" tourneys.
-
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
I don't really like this limitation because of the headaches it would cause Rob. It would be very complicated to decide what constitutes a "group". If there are 15 people in a playgroup and 5 of them show up per tournament, and they kept rotating, it could mean it would take 18 tournaments for each player to participate in 6. But if there was more overlap, then their quota might be reached faster leaving some people out. Keeping track of that would be a nightmare.
I think it's better to let people have as many as they want. No one can get more than 10 RNRS points for the year out of them anyway, so I don't see any harm.
-
Hey,
Impromptu tournaments would without question be effectively closed tournaments. Only the people I tell about the tournament could attend so it would be invite only where the people invited are the people that are informed about the tournament (I can invite everyone to come to a closed local and it's still invite only). As such these would need to be restricted to local tournaments only.
I don't think we need an attendance requirement, a limit to the number of these tournaments per year, or a "black out" period during the summer. These are effectively the same as closed locals so if a closed local doesn't have any of those restrictions then these tournaments wouldn't need them either. (Although a 4 or 6 week dead period prior to nationals rather than the normal 2 week dead period would be reasonable considering the extra transfer of information and supplies that would happen after the event rather than before.)
I think a host should have to submit an application and be approved for hosting impromptu tournaments before they could host any of these.
I think the tournament fee for this sort of tournament should be slightly higher than the tournament fee for a normal tournament (say an extra $5) to encourage hosts to run conventional tournaments when possible.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
For all of us with smaller playgroups, just missing three people would disqualify us from an official tournament.
My 2 cents:
1. limit impromptu to a local tourney (open, not closed -- to abide by Cactus' ultimate aim of opening the doors to all)
2. set minimum to 3 players per category (maybe 2 per 2-player event, obviously)
3. do not limit number of tournaments since RNRS is maxed out anyway
4. allow impromptu beyond April but credit points to the next tourney season
5. add $5 to existing local tourney application fee to cover any inconvenience on Cactus
6. host may award more than one type of promo but must request Cactus for only one type to cover number of promos given away
7. urge Cactus to begin the 'experiment' as soon as Cactus concurs and rules are finalized -- "WE are itching to make this 'win-win' happen, Mr. Anderson!"
Thanks so much to all the minds that have contributed to this thinktank so far. Kudos to one and all!
Godbless!!!
-
Something we have to consider. What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?
-
Something we have to consider. What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?
:) --- the thinktank is actually in order to eventually reach a conclusion that, at least, a local tourney could be allowed as an 'impromptu' event. I am sure that most hosts understand the valid reason for the 5 or more weeks allowance for a tourney to be approved. If approved by Cactus, impromptu Local tourneys would be exempt from the 5-6 weeks before tourney submission minimum.
So far, consensus disapproves the idea of impromptu for tourneys beyond Local level.
Godbless.
-
Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.
You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.
Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.
-
Something we have to consider. What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?
:) --- the thinktank is actually in order to eventually reach a conclusion that, at least, a local tourney could be allowed as an 'impromptu' event. I am sure that most hosts understand the valid reason for the 5 or more weeks allowance for a tourney to be approved. If approved by Cactus, impromptu Local tourneys would be exempt from the 5-6 weeks before tourney submission minimum.
So far, consensus disapproves the idea of impromptu for tourneys beyond Local level.
Godbless.
I just didn't notice anyone mention why a local has a six week period. I'm all for the change but I just wanted to make sure people also look at the possible reason why there is a six week period for locals to begin with. Tiss all :).
-
Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.
You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.
Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.
I like the idea of sending in a separate application to become an Impromptu Host. I would add that the applicant must have hosted one local tournament or co-host two tournaments with the six week period in order to become an impromptu host (sorry Clinton :P). However, I think it would be better for Rob/Cactus to have the promos/rewards be sent after the tournament. This way, they know exactly how many promos to send you and they don’t have promos flouting around across country waiting for some random day. They can definitely keep better track of everything if it’s turned in after the tournament. If, in case, there are people who come to your tournament that you do not see that often, then you could make sure to get their address to send their promo to when it arrives.
-
Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.
You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.
Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.
I agree with this. I want to host local tourneys very soon. My brother and I would be hosting a Share Group for our church in the Ft. Lauderdale, FL area. Redemption is a great addition to have fun and dip into the Bible. But 6 weeks is just so long! It's a local level, the problem is right now we don't know of any one who plays redemption. We're aware people have a flesh & carnality to overcome. Impatience or losing interest certainly happens when you stretch out the date of a coming tournament. Especially when it comes to children & teenagers. Faster results would influence more participation with gamers. What if we could email the applications or fax them and reduce the waiting period to about 3-4 wks?
-
I am thrilled by this idea. It allows more flexibility to host tournaments, at the local level, throughout the year. Due to the national recession and compounded by living in California, finances have been tight around here lately. It would be easier for me to see "hey, I have $25 bucks in my pocket and some kids itching for a tournament. I'll run one this weekend." at least that is how it would work for me.
The ideas set forth by the other tournament hosts have been sound ideas. I am currently falling in line with what the majority of hosts are voicing. The main thing we need to do is keep it simple to have it work effectively. And those are my thoughts.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
Hmm, I saw Rob reading this earlier but it appears he is holding off on a decision for now.
-
Hmm, I saw Rob reading this earlier ....
No, you're thinking of the "No, you're thinking of...." thread.
-
As Rob prepares to make a decision, I just wanted to throw out two more thoughts:
1. In theory this should save Cactus half of their current shipping costs (if we are allowed to download tournament winner and sign-in sheets), as well as reduce general shipping by only paying for exact costs for a one-time shipment, rather than the current pre-paid envelopes that may not require all the added postage.
2. This process would also save hosts money, since we can collect the money from the players that would be used to pay for the tournament, rather than pay out-of-pocket first and hope we get it back later.
-
My $.02...
I like this idea. Especially since it would allow me to host T1-MP and/or T2-MP tournaments during our twice a month game nights as interest warrants.
I also like DaClock's suggestion or something similar so the impromptu hosting doesn't become, "Hey me and a couple of buddies were bored so we decided to throw a tournament for ourselves." It also seems like a good way to cut down on any additional work required on Rob's part.
Lastly, I would probably limit hosts to no more than one impromptu tournament for every regularly approved tournament. The goal shouldn't be, IMO, merely increasing the number of tournaments. The goal should be to increase the number of opportunities for all players to play in tournaments. Pre-announced open tournaments would seem to better serve this end than would spur-of-the-moment closed locals. As an additional benefit, by combining this with DaClock's idea, you could add a check-off to the regular tourney application form and collect fees at that time, which even further reduces the paperwork over-head on Rob.
-
I would probably limit hosts to no more than one impromptu tournament for every regularly approved tournament. The goal shouldn't be, IMO, merely increasing the number of tournaments. The goal should be to increase the number of opportunities for all players to play in tournaments.
I don't know that I agree with this and here is why. We have a very small and very young playgroup overall with the average age being between 7-9 years of age. There are some older players ranging from 11-13, but they are getting to the age that die hard dedication to Redemption is wavering and/or in direct competition with involvement in sports, school activities and what not. IF I can get everyone together at one time in one place for a tournament I MAY get 15 players. On average, I would say, I end up with 4-7 players at a local event. I've set up a tounament 6 weeks out, handed out flyers, made phone calls, talked to parents and ended up with my boys and I there. It happens. On the fly flexibility would allow smaller groups to engage in more Local Tournaments to the betterment of the group with no adverse actions happening in RNRS points. My players could careless about about RNRS points, but the chance to complete their local tournament promo collection or bragging rights of placing in this tournament or the chance to get a card with "a picture so cool it is sick" (I guess sick is the new awesome?) or one of those cards with the gold border.....those are what my group is interested in.
Whether the tournament is a Closed or Open Local doesn't change what happens in my neck of the woods. Everyone who could possibly attend would be notifiied anyway. I don't draw players from Oregon or Nevada to Local tournaments Open or Closed. No one is gonna make the drive. Districts and above are different and are not currently being discussed in this so I'm not going to address those at this time.
I do like the idea of hosting an impromtu tournament and being able to fill out the paperwork for it and having the option of adding another scheduled tournament to the paperwork and sending it all in together. I feel a one-for-one requirement would be detrimental to this impromptu idea, in general, as I would be less inclined to host an impromptu tournament knowing that I have to turn in a date for second future tournament. Understand that to my playgroup a tournament, any tournament, is a HUGE deal as we do not have many tournaments here. If I don't host one, they don't happen. I am still holding out hope that an older person would get involved in the game and would help with hosting and what not, but at this time they haven't appeared yet. I have introduced plenty of adults to the game (planted the seeds), but I am still waiting for the harvest........hmm, nice analogy if I say so myself. hehe. I apologize for rambling on, but I still think we need to keep this as simple and unrestricted as we can so it will be used. I don't currently see many ways for it to be abused and it seems those have been addressed.
Rob has a unique perspective and will definately see some of the things we overlook, but I see this as a win-win for everyone IF and WHEN done simply and correctly.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
Great post Mike ;D
If ever there is a problem with the RNRS points being abused, I wouldn't care if we have it that all closed locals are excluded from RNRS. Hoe msny people, once they dive into hosting, actually hosts Closed Locals? The only reason I do is the consern that some people down south would make the 3.5 hur drive to easil win at a local (I doubt that will ever happen but since I only host T1-2P/MP, closed is thebest route or me). As mentioned, my playgroup, like Mike's, is almost imposible to have a set plan six weeks in advance.
Here's praying that Rob will let us do these tournaments :).
-
I too am in favor of this idea in general, but I don't see any value in limiting the number of impromptu tournaments. For my tournaments, making them impromptu is NOT making them CLOSED. I've probably hosted 15 or 20 tournaments, and only two people have ever come to them because they saw them on the Cactus website. My players hear about the tournaments from each other, from an annoucement in our church bulletin, from my website or by a direct email from me. All of those methods allow us to notify just about everybody who is likely to come within a few days. If I can host a tournament two weeks from now, everyone is still welcome to come and they will all hear about it in the normal ways.
So what do we do for the people who need to find tournaments through the Cactus website. Da Clock's idea of registering with Rob as an Impromptu Host means that Rob could list us as such on the Cactus Website tournaments page with contact information so that potential new players can contact us directly for tournament dates and times.
The other issue is promos. I really prefer that the players get their promos at the tournament. There is a large set of players beyond the regulars that only come once or twice a year and I don't normally see them outside of Redemption much. If I had to get them their promos later it would cause a lot of extra hassle for me and for them. So, I would propose that if we're signing up with Rob to hold impromptu locals for the entire year, that we have Rob send us one package of local promos to hold us for the year, and that we settle up with Rob by returning the unused promos at the end of the year or re-sign up for the next year. That way Rob wouldn't be sending promos out for each tournament (saving more shipping costs) and we would have them to give to the players at the tournament. We could even provide Rob a small security deposit for the promos to make sure that we settle up at the end of the year. As long as the tournament host mails, faxes, or emails Rob the application, sign-up and winners sheets and pays for the tournament afterward, the results would be official. A host should be able to hold as many of these impromptu locals as they want as long as they pay the tournament fees. The current limit of 10 RNRS points per player on locals and the cost of the tournament fees are sufficient to counter any abuse.
I personally would be able to host many more tournaments if I only needed two weeks notice to set one up.
Mike
-
The other issue is promos. So, I would propose that if we're signing up with Rob to hold impromptu locals for the entire year, that we have Rob send us one package of local promos to hold us for the year, and that we settle up with Rob by returning the unused promos at the end of the year or re-sign up for the next year. That way Rob wouldn't be sending promos out for each tournament (saving more shipping costs) and we would have them to give to the players at the tournament. We could even provide Rob a small security deposit for the promos to make sure that we settle up at the end of the year. As long as the tournament host mails, faxes, or emails Rob the application, sign-up and winners sheets and pays for the tournament afterward, the results would be official.
I am glad you addressed this Mike. I was thinking about this, but did not post anything because I didn't really have any type of solution in mind. I think that you have summed up the Promo issue nicely and with a built in cost savings to Rob in the long run. I would have no problem signing up as a Impromptu Tournament host in order to provide my playgroup with more tournament activity. Once again another Win-Win for everyone.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
At first I did not like the idea but after reading all the post I think it would be ok. I have often run unofficial tournaments at Birthday party’s, etc... and often I would have liked to give out promos because that really motivates new players. I think there should be limits similar to what Gabe and Bany posted.
I think ReyZen should become the Redemption impromptu tournament Czar. That would keep Rob from being overwhelmed by more tournaments. Host would make would sign up initially with Roy and get their start up kit of promos. I would like a limit of one impromptu tournament a month per host. That would keep host from getting burned out and encouraging new host. Roy could effectively monitor everything and give fees and results to Rob on a regular basis.
-
I second Roy as Redemption Impromptu Tournament Czar.
-
I would definitely be able to host more tournaments, if not any tournaments at all, if we could do impromptu. Six weeks is a lot... the last time I did that it was such a long wait that half the members made other plans and couldn't come. The point is that things can come up and it's hard to commit a month and a half ahead of time for a tournament, when you don't know if anything more important comes up.
-
I think ReyZen should become the Redemption impromptu tournament Czar. That would keep Rob from being overwhelmed by more tournaments. Host would make would sign up initially with Roy and get their start up kit of promos. I would like a limit of one impromptu tournament a month per host. That would keep host from getting burned out and encouraging new host. Roy could effectively monitor everything and give fees and results to Rob on a regular basis.
If Rob needs me to do it, I will not refuse the hosting team's mandate.
Blessings all!
-
I know I am late in responding, but I really, truly love this idea! The one thing that often prevents me from hosting tournaments is the inability to see far enough into the future of my schedule. I would host more tournaments in the event that this idea took flight.
-
Hey,
Let me play devil's advocate for a bit.
The cost to Cactus of sending out promos and prize support will be unchanged. If Rob sends the supplies before or after the event isn't going to affect the cost of sending them. Cactus pays a fixed rate of $1.74 (I think that's right, it might be a few cents more or less) for returning extra/unused prizes and promos, any cost beyond that is paid by the host. So assuming the system we set up requires nothing to be returned. Cactus saves $1.74 per tournament. If there are 100 impromptu tournaments in a year Cactus saves $174. That's less than the tournament registration fee for 4 districts. This isn't a move that's going to save Cactus a very significant amount of money.
How much do the players really care if an event is an impromptu tournament or an unofficial tournament? Those of us on this message board really care, but we aren't a very representative sample of the Redemption community. In my experience the average player doesn't care all that much.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
This isn't a move that's going to save Cactus a very significant amount of money.
That isn't the purpose. I like when people play DA, but I don't see a disadvantage here. Saving money is great, but the idea is to increase the number of official tournaments and therefore the amount of Redemption played and therefore the number of decks/packs Cactus sells.
-
The cost to Cactus of sending out promos and prize support will be unchanged.
I disagree. If I schedule a tournament that has four categories, Rob has to send the prizes for all those categories. If I cancel two of them due to lack of participation, then I have wasted the shipping cost to send those prizes. Unless everything is sent in a flat-rate package, the cost will vary depending on shipping zones. I think if exact prize packages are shipped (which may just be Redemption Cash), then there will be savings (even if flat-rate shipping is avoided).
Besides, $174 is a lot of money to me. It must be nice to toss that kind of money away as insignificant. ;)
I also agree with Cameron that the overall goal is to make tournaments easier to schedule, which will increase the total number of tournaments. As long as Cactus is making something from tournaments, more tournaments means more money. At the very least, it should increase general sales. I know I always sell booster packs at my tournaments.
While making life easier for hosts, we are just making sure that we don't make things more difficult for Rob. I would think that saving $174 (plus the cost of those sturdy white envelopes) and not having to include a return envelope would be easier for him.
-
How much do the players really care if an event is an impromptu tournament or an unofficial tournament?
This is really the key question. Anyone can hold an "unofficial tournament" whenever they want, without giving any notice to Cactus. But would making it an "official tournament" cause more people to come and play? Personally I think the answer is yes. I think that part of the draw of tournament is the promos and tournament winning cards. The RNRS points are also motivational to the players that think they will win some, but everyone loves the free cards :)
-
Another aspect for savings was the idea that promos for 5 to 10 tourneys be sent at one time to a host. This saves because instead of having to send package after package to hosts it would be one package which could save money.
-
This process would also save hosts money, since we can collect the money from the players that would be used to pay for the tournament, rather than pay out-of-pocket first and hope we get it back later.
This is my biggest problem. Often I have to save a lot of money to be able to pay for a tournament and then wait 6 weeks to get any money back from that tournament in order to pay for another one. If I held impromptu tournaments, I would be able to host nearly every week if it were allowed to do so. and I could then get extra categories involved that ususally dont see a lot of action at the local level.
Here are some of the benefits of this system.
1. It makes locals easier to host. There is less time spent planning a tournament and a quicker return on your "investment" of time and capital.
2. more locals can be hosted in a year. I could easily host one a month and use the money from those locals to do a district every other month.
3. More locals means more categories will be played so more varieties of redemption will be offered to new "recruits" maybe type 1 is not their thing but they may LOVE booster draft!
4. Saves cactus money and any money saved is good money.
5. Locals are where noobs can cut their teeth and the more they play the better they will get. Since this will undoubtedly increase thenimber of local tournaments, this will help increase thenumber of quality players overall.
6. As Soul Seeker mentioned, these trounametns can be scheduled around babies, bar-mitzvahs and bowling leagues. Life can go on instead of being on hold for six weeks.
I like these ideas, I just wish we could do them for districts as well.
-
5. Locals are where noobs can cut their teeth and the more they play the better they will get. Since this will undoubtedly increase thenimber of local tournaments, this will help increase thenumber of quality players overall.
Rob has always loved the concept of Local tourneys.
For me, a Local is the ultimate breeding ground for players who get better by playing limited categories and playing them well on a regular basis. My local gaming store plans a booster draft very soon for MTG players who have existing basic Redemption decks that they used to practice against me during their free time on FNMs. Of course I use a basic deck against them, too.
If that unofficial Booster Draft gets on the way and all MTG players who also learned Redemption play, we're looking at at least a dozen MTG players boosting their Redemption decks that night. God is good!
I'm certain that we are expecting a favorable decision from Rob soon. That's as soon as he gets a bit of rest from continuous shipments of TxP packs --- Kudos to you Mr. Anderson for a successful TxP launch!
Meanwhile, let this thinktank continue. It's one of the best Redemption thinktanks I've ever been part of. These boards are blessed with some of the greatest minds I've ever known. And I am not overstating THE fact!
Godbless all!
-
I am really hoping that either this gets approved, or we can have a 4 week waiting period for tourneys.
-
Does Rob know about this thread?
-
1) Only Local tournaments would be eligible
2) These would be limited to 1 per month per group
3) all paperwork/payment for previous tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
5) None of these tournaments between May 1st and Nationals
6) all paperwork must be turned in by May 15th or they are not eligible
I am willing to try this with the above stipulations and the following:
7) The host must print their own forms (winner list, sign in sheet, tournament application) and mail these back with check or money order & Redemption Cash. No faxes, e-mails or credit cards.
8 You must be an experienced host - have already hosted at least 2 santioned locals and 1 sanctioned district to be eligible for this program.
-
Sweet ;D.
I'm glad that you have considered our suggestions and have offered to try this :D.
Thanks Mr. Anderson ;D ;D ;D
God Bless
-
Okay but how would prizes work? Would I have to Have my own packs, or would I get the "normal" prizes after I send in the paper work? I mean if I want to have prizes available that day I know I can provide my own, but When I send in my info will I still get the normal amount of prizes and such?
-
This is great news indeed! Thanks Rob! ;D
-
Outstanding. I can't wait to see the final draft and have it up and running.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
I'm not sure if I've ever hosted a district. :scratch: I know I've hosted a States though. Would that count?
-
I'm not sure if I've ever hosted a district. :scratch: I know I've hosted a States though. Would that count?
I'm pretty sure that would count :P.
Still hoping that he'll think about letting me be an exception to the district part (since I can really only guarantee three people in my play group (plus the cost)).
-
Is this effective immediately?
-
Okay but how would prizes work? Would I have to Have my own packs, or would I get the "normal" prizes after I send in the paper work? I mean if I want to have prizes available that day I know I can provide my own, but When I send in my info will I still get the normal amount of prizes and such?
That's why experience is a must. This assumes you have saved some prize support materials to advance your promos, boosters, Redemption cash, etc. ---
Yes, Shawn --- you get retroactive promos and prizes as soon as Cactus receives your application, winner list, and payment.
Godbless.
-
Hey Roy,
Do you know if this decision was immediate or if more needs to be done first? I only ask because I held an unofficial tournament this past Saturday, since the one in Brandon, FL was cancelled. My new playgroup had already planned a lock-in for Friday night and then we were going to drive out to Brandon in the morning. I decided to hold my own tournament so that the new players would not lose heart. The lock-in was also a surprise birthday party for me, so they did not want to reschedule.
I was just wondering if I could count that one, since Rob did not post until Sunday.
-
Hey Roy,
Do you know if this decision was immediate or if more needs to be done first? I only ask because I held an unofficial tournament this past Saturday, since the one in Brandon, FL was cancelled. My new playgroup had already planned a lock-in for Friday night and then we were going to drive out to Brandon in the morning. I decided to hold my own tournament so that the new players would not lose heart. The lock-in was also a surprise birthday party for me, so they did not want to reschedule.
I was just wondering if I could count that one, since Rob did not post until Sunday.
Tim, I would assume yes, that Rob would gladly sanction your tourney especially that it was heroic of you to grant your playgroup members a tourney they were denied of somewhere else. Go be the first to submit your materials based on Rob's rules announcement.
God bless you for reviving your host status and spreading Redemption seeds in your part of Florida!
-
Hey Roy,
Do you know if this decision was immediate or if more needs to be done first? I only ask because I held an unofficial tournament this past Saturday, since the one in Brandon, FL was cancelled. My new playgroup had already planned a lock-in for Friday night and then we were going to drive out to Brandon in the morning. I decided to hold my own tournament so that the new players would not lose heart. The lock-in was also a surprise birthday party for me, so they did not want to reschedule.
I was just wondering if I could count that one, since Rob did not post until Sunday.
Yes but, the sign in sheet by players who played is still required. Also, it is essential to me that the hosts know what they are doing. Therefore, there will be no waivers to the requirement that the host have at a minimum 2 locals and 1 district (or higher) under their belt before I will sanction this type of event. Moreover, this type of event is intended as an exception in unusual circumstances such as Tim's above. They will not become the normal way to host a tournament.
-
Also I think it should be made clear that the host must provide both the local tournament promos and the Tournament winner promos. I can see where some people may "fudge" on this requirement by offering cheaper cards or simple rares and then get real promos in return from cactus.
-
Also I think it should be made clear that the host must provide both the local tournament promos and the Tournament winner promos.
I think it would be nice for hosts to allow players to choose what promos or tournament winners cards they want if the host has a variety available.
-
I agree with that. Say I have 3 copies of Sampson, 4 copies of Esther and 6 copies of Panic demon and the 10 people who come to my impromptu tournament choose among those cards, I have no problem with that. I am concerned that the people will either get no promos for a tournament or they will get other cards such as rares from released sets because the host does not have promos for them. I think the host should be responsible to collect enough promos to give to anyone who comes to a tournament that will be officially licensed by cactus, before they host one.
-
Given that these types of tourneys require hosts who have hosted before, having promos or getting promos is some what easier. From just the locals I've hosted and played in I have enough for a decient size tourney. Plus many players don't use they're local promos so they would be willing to trade them away cheaply so hosts can have a good stock of promos.
-
Plus many players don't use they're local promos so they would be willing to trade them away cheaply so hosts can have a good stock of promos.
That was how it was for me. When I first got the Adonijah promo, none of my students were using black, so I ended up with 15 extras after trades. :o
-
As for promos, I will of course send promo cards to the host after the event when I receive their tournament application and player sign in sheet. However, the host will need to choose one promo on the application.
It will be up to the host to get promo cards to his players. But, that is one of the tradeoffs for hosting this type of event.
-
I like this idea.
-
Cool idea. I have been wanting to get back into hosting!
-
The locals tournament must also be closed, since it is not really announced in advance. It is my understanding that this limits the tourney to two events. As I tried to host one with more than that.
-
I have been hosting mine with more than two cateories. I am unaware of any rule that limits the number of categories for a local closed tournament
-
I was under the impression that you could only host two events for a local closed event. Have you or others hosted pre approved tournaments with 3 or more events?
-
Based on the tournament application, you can host all 7 styles for all 6 different types of tournaments, it just costs more for each categories.
Styles being:
Type 1: 2 Player, Multi-Player, Teams
Type 2: 2 Player, Multi-Player
Closed & Booster
Types of Tournaments being:
Local (open), Local (closed), District, State, Regionals, Nationals
-
I was under the impression that you could only host two events for a local closed event. Have you or others hosted pre approved tournaments with 3 or more events?
I am not aware of any event limits for closed tournaments.
-
I remember that being the limit (2) but can't find it anywhere...
-
I thought it was in the tournament host guide but I looked in 2007, 2009, and 2010 editions and could not find it?
So I ask the Redemption powers that be, Can a local closed tournament host 3, 4, or even all events?
In Christ,
Rob M
-
I have hosted a local closed with at least 5 probably 6 categories before. t1-2 player, t1 multi, t2 -2 player, t2 multi, booster and sealed. Sometimes I host the tournament over two or three days to get all the catergories in that my group has interest in playing.
-
A closed local tournament can only have 2 official catagories. You can run more if you like but Cactus won't send you prizes for more than 2 catagories and RNS points won't count for more than 2 catagories.
-
Well I h ave recieved prizes and RNRS points for myself and for those that won/placed in each category for the three locals I have run so far. All of them have been over 2 categories. Do you know where that rule is listed?
-
Can't find where it was listed. The first time I hosted a closed tournament Rob told me I could only have 2 official catagories.
-
Is that just an old rule that has since changed? We need an official word from Rob on this.
-
If it is an official rule I would like to know as well. I am not sure I agree with it, but that is beside the point. If I have violated it, I did so unawares and would like to know for sure before I host another tournament.
-
I emailed Rob and here is the email I got back
Hi Matthew:
I have modified the rules for closed since hosts can apply for an event to be sanctioned after the fact. You may host up to six closed events in a tournament season and you may hold as many catagories as you like.
Sincerely,
Rob Anderson
Cactus Game Design, Inc.
There you go!
-
Good. Now it is official.
-
Sweet!
-
I understand why it is important, but I am not a big fan of the requirement for hosts to have 2 locals and district under their belt before they can do this. I haven't hosted yet, but my whole playgroup are college guys (and girl), and it's impossible to tell 6 weeks in advance if we'll have people available for a sat. tourney.....
this would work great, but I won't be able to get the first three normal tourney's planned.... until summer if even, because my friends here are scattered across time and space during breaks :(
-
Nick, this principle works for you perfectly, then. You do not need to send in an application before you can hold your tourney. What were you implying as a problem, then? Is it that you have not hosted one yet? I or even a couple of hosts can help you with that by doing a side-by-side hosting with you with an existing host who can to an adhoc with you. Nonethless, I do not foresee any problems.
-
8. Hosts must have already hosted at least 2 sanctioned Locals and 1 sanctioned District to be eligible for the Pre-Cactus-Approved tourney program.
correct, i have not hosted yet. Can you explain the second part of your post, regarding adhoc (which i only understand in terms of computer networking)?
-
My 'ad hoc' meant using the pre-sanctioned plan but with a host who is able to travel to your tourney and co-host with you. His/her name will be placed side-by-side yours. This makes the tourney official. Try hosting side-by-side for District. Then just apply for a tourney requiring the 6wk timeframe. You should be set to do future 'ad hocs'.
Also, the 2-local + 1-district hosting requirement assures you of some promo card supply if even little, plus the prizes -- you will need to advance your prizes, that is why.
Post in your reply your city and state. Any host who reads this and who is nearest you should be able to help. Otherwise, we can think of other means to make it happen for your group.
-
This is really great to know about. I just had a unofficial Tournament in Chicago and this could really enhance what resources we can have access to on short notice.