WBC After Action Report and Top Centurions
Sneak Peek of WBC Winners

WBC Event Winners
WBC Event Reports

WBC Yearbooks
WBC Event History and Laurels
WBC Event History and Laurels
WBC Medals
WBC Boardmasters

 

Carcassonne (CAR) WBC 2018 Event Report
Updated February 21, 2018 Icon Key
169 Players Natasha Metzger 2018 Status 2019 Status Event History
2018 Champion Click box for details. Click box for details.
 

Record Setting Field!

Carcassonne 2018 saw a record number of participants, breaking the record last set in 2014 in Lancaster. 81 of our 169 unique players participated in multiple heats. Joe Millovich was the only player to win in all three qualifying heats.

The 2018 demo had many attendees, more than any prior year, which may be because we utilized a projector to display the Carcassonne Powerpoint demo on the wall. This was much better than prior years when demo attendees huddled around my laptop. Many thanks to Nathan Barhorst, who let us borrow his projector!

Quarterfinals:
Players with more than one win in the qualifying heats earned a bye to the Semi-Final round. Eight players earned a bye from the Quarter-Final, which meant we needed eight tables in the Quarterfinals. 34 single-game winners showed up to the Quarter-Final. In order to accommodate this, the GM team had to use 5-player quarterfinals, instead of the normal 4-player. This also meant that 6 alternates were needed to ensure all the tables had the same number of players. Alternates are selected based on tournament points earned throughout the qualifying heats and the list of alternates is always posted on the kiosk after the list of winners.

Semifinals:
Table 1: A close match, which saw Joe Millovich, starting 3rd, winning with 95 points, followed by Andrew Martin, playing 2nd, earning 94 points. 3rd place was held by Goran Kero (starting 4th), with 84 points, and John Myers (1st player) in 4th place with 50 points.

Table 2: Family rivalry in the Semi-Finals with Sam Wolff winning with 104 points (he played in 2nd position), Amy Rule took 2nd place (started 3rd) with 81 points, Paul Rubin took 3rd with 63 points (started 4th), and Ray Wolff rounds out the table with 47 points. Surely his loss was tempered by his son’s big win!

Table 3: The top 3 players at this table scored within 10 points of each other. Nicholas Metzger (started 2nd) won with 88 points. Katie McCorry started 4th at the table and took 2nd place with 81 points. Chad Martin went first, but took 3rd with 79 points. Pam Przyblyski-LaDue took 4th place (started 3rd) with 58 points.

Table 4: The final table is where we find our only female Semi-Final winner this year, Natasha Metzger, who played in the “disadvantaged” 4th position, and scored 68 points. Norman Rule took 2nd place (started in 3rd position), and scored 56 points. Jack Wolff scored 47 points to take 3rd place, and he started the game in 1st position. Kevin Hammond started in 2nd position and finished in 4th place with 40 points.

Finals:
The Finals saw Joe Millovich playing 1st, followed by Nicholas Metzger, then Sam Wolff, and Natasha Metzger played in 4th position. It was a fairly low-scoring final with Natasha winning the game with 62 points. Sam finished in 2nd place with 56 points. Joe was right behind Sam with 55 points. Nicholas took home his Archer meeples with his 51 point, 4th place finish.

Marc Visocnik created a time-lapse of the final, which will be uploaded to the WBC Facebook site shortly. The Carcassonne Final continues to use the giant Carcassonne set, which we borrow from Norman and Amy Rule. Starting last year, I began providing character meeples for the Finalists to use in the large final. As we currently have 3 plaques to offer our players, the 4th place player wins their meeples to take home with them. 4th player “disadvantage?”

The talk of the event this year was around the supposed disadvantage held by the player starting in the 4th position at the table. The GM team analyzed all the scorecards from 2017 & 2018 games and found no evidence to support the “disadvantage” of going 4th and playing one less tile than the rest of the players at the table. Any alterations to tournament gameplay will always be results oriented. Please note that the 2018 winner won the final starting in 4th position, and she also won her semi-final round starting in the 4th position.

The GM played both of her qualifying heats starting in the 4th position. In the first heat, about halfway through the game, I noticed that I had not yet scored a single point, and I didn’t score my first points of the game until my penultimate turn. As you can imagine, I didn’t win that game, but I maintain that it had less to do with my starting position, and more to do with the tile draws. One extra tile would not have improved my game in the slightest.

In Heat 2, there were 16, 4-player games. More players starting in 4th position won their games compared to the number of winners who started in 2nd position. More players starting in 3rd position finished last than players starting in 4th position. Of the players starting in 4th position and finishing in 2nd place, the closest player was 9 points from tying the winner. Of the players starting in 4th position and finishing in 3rd place, the closest player was 6 points from tying the winner; however, this was an outlier, as the other players were 21 and 29 points away from tying the winner. Four players started in 4th position and finished last, finishing 8, 22, 29, and 32 points behind the winner.

How many points can you score with your final tile? We would like to analyze how many points people tend to score with their final tile. Unfortunately, we have no data for this metric at this time. Look for updated scorecards next year to include this statistic for future analysis! Unless a player is completing a large city, it is doubtful that the person in 4th position would improve their finishing place. There will be occasional instances where one final tile could make a difference; however, in the vast majority of games, it would not make a difference.

These results show a small margin of variance among the players, which tells us that a player’s starting position has less to do with determining their final place in the game. It seems as though the bigger factor may be player skill level, and also the random chance of which tiles are drawn. If you would like more statistical information regarding this analysis, have your meeple email my meeple at FluteKitty@gmail.com.

2018 Laurelists Repeating Laurelists: 0
Sam Wolff Joe Millovich Nicholas Metzger Paul Rubin Norman Rule
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Natasha Metzger on her way to the Championship. Early farmers looking for castles.
Green wants to ensure the field points. Finalists with GM Jennifer Visocnik.
GM  Jennifer Visocnik [6th Year]  NA
 FluteKitty@Gmail.com  NA