wilderness war [Updated October 2003]  

2003 WBC Report    

 2004 Status: pending 2004 GM commitment

Paul Gaberson, PA

2003 Champion

2nd: Bruce Wigdor, NJ

3rd: Tom Drueding, NJ

4th: Keith Wixson, NJ

5th: Dennis Culhane, PA

6th: Bari Herman, NJ

Event History
2002    Rob Winslow     50
2003    Paul Gaberson     30

PBeM Event History
2003    -     64

WAM Event History
2003    Tom Drueding     20


Offsite links:

AREA Ratings

boardgamegeek  

 Laurels
Rank Name

From

Last
Total
 1. Tom Drueding

FL

03
32
 2. Paul Gaberson

PA

03
30
 3. Rob Winslow

NY

02
30
 4. Keith Wixson

NJ

03
21
 5. Bruce Wigdor

NJ

03
18
 6. Roger Taylor

VA

02
18
 7. John Haas

PA

02
12
 8. John Vasilakos

VA

02
  9
 9. Gary Phillips

MD

03
  8
10. Michael Ussery

MD

03
  6
11. Dennis Culhane

PA

03
  6
12. Doug Smith

PA

03
  6
13. James Pei

TX

03
  4
14. Bari Herman

NJ

03
  3
15. Peter Reese

VA

02
  3

Past Winners

Rob Winslow - NY
2002
 


Our top vote getter in the 2002 Century new event vote

The second WBC Wilderness War tournament was full of surprises. None of last year's top six finished in the top six this year. On top of that, the two finalists, who each had one loss in the tournament up to that point, were only ranked 52nd and 83rd in the AREA ratings, having upset, respectively, the previously undefeated 10th and 3rd ranked players in the semi-finals. The Champion's Warhawk (shown at right) went to Paul Gaberson. The Warclub (shown below) went to runner-up Bruce Wigdor. Another surprise, and a somewhat distressing one, was the sharp drop off in participants from 50 last year to 30 this year. I don't know what to attribute this to, but scheduling conflicts with For the People and Saratoga may have hurt.

The switch to a Swiss Elimination format went off smoothly enough and was an improvement in many people's eyes over last year's Single Elimination format. There were four rounds of Swiss play on Friday with the top four players advancing to the semi-finals on Saturday night. There was some controversy over the tie break system I used to determine which two of the six players with one loss after four rounds were to advance. I used a system based upon the victory points each player earned in the four Swiss rounds. Some liked this system, while others would have preferred a system based upon strength of schedule. The debate is on as to whether changes will be made for next year.

A statistical break down of the games also reveals some unexpected things. The French won 28 of the 45 games played (62%, up from 52% last year). More significantly, the combined record of the four semi-finalists was 14-2 as the French and 3-3 as the Brits. While in the past the consensus has generally been that the AM Scenario is well balanced, these numbers seem to cast doubt on that. Indeed, in the ten games in which VPs were bid for sides, in nine of those games the winning bidder was the French player. I personally believe that the French have a distinct edge (my only loss came as the Brits and my one regret in the tournament was not forcing Bruce Wigdor to bid one VP to play the French in that semi-final match - it would have given me the win). The Brits have a hard time getting a VP edge in most games, which means that victory for them almost always comes down to control of two "victory spaces", and experienced French players have learned the tricks that can foil such victories. I would expect to see more players bidding for the French in the future.

And finally, I would like to extend thanks to my Assistant GMs, Gary Phillips and Rob Winslow, for their support.

It's all in the wrist action don't you know.
 GM      Keith Wixson  [2nd Year]   NA
    keithwixson@paulhastings.com   NA

2003 Preview Page | View the Icon Key | Return to main BPA page