My only concern is that Vassal adds an extra "learning curve" to the gaming and wanted to make certain that the results of a Vassal tourney would be directly comparable to a "real-life" tourney... As I stated: my experience with it is both limited and out-dated so, naturally, I'll defer to your knowledge of the subject.

Agreed; I only wish there was a better, more intuitive user interface - I'll check it out again, though, since it's been awhile.

er, how is this different from how the Floor Rules already are?

Regardless, my "vote" is following the DCI floor rules as they currently exist (however they are at the time, not fixed how they are now) with the following additions:

1) VASSAL tournements are acceptable within the same limits (4 players and some sort of organizer or judge.)
2) Maps from a provided list of optional maps are allowed with 100% consent from players participating in the tourney. If one or more players object, the DCI map list will be used. (Then of course, provide the list.)

Judge test is unnecessary. The WotC one is not worth the effort it takes to maintain nor the results it achieves. If someone wants to judge, let them try. Don't try to solve a problem before it's apparent there really is one and that the solution actually solves it.

I believe that there should be a set allowable list... I disagree with having a "commitee" decision about anything before each tournament - why not allow the AT-AT in 200pts games, if everyone agrees to it? Because players should know what to expect long before they get to a tournament .

Besides, some legal maps are just as hard to get as JC's map pack for many people.

I agree with this. Only because when 2 players sit down at a table to play during a tournament everyone who has a custom map will have to have 2 just in case 1 disagrees. Or a player could refuse because their squad may not perform well on the custom map their opponent has chosen. If everyone knows going in, then it's kind of the same thing as each player agreeing & will save time. I think the issue is if a custom map is used, it will not reportable to DCI as it breaks the rules but when I look at my standings on DCI I don't see what maps I play on listed.

Concerning customized maps, A LGS-group is going to be able to do whatever they want, despite any DCI or SWMG mandate says. Therefore, let the LGS groups decide for themselves how they want to handle their maps.

Second, Any event on vassal that will effect ratings should be publicly posted here on SWMG in advance so that all can know it is going on and can participate. In such announcement, maps and other limitations/exceptions should be noted.

I agree with that for sure.

I don't know about that one, Chris. I want to say that, if we some of us are on Vassal, and there is enough for a tourney, why not allow an on-the-spot organization and tourney. I don't see a problem with it. It's a "Pick Up Tourney." So PUT up or shut up, ROFL!

Well, I don't believe that the fact that some folks will choose to do what they will with these rules should stop us from making set rules. Afterall, there is nothing that a group can't do if everyone present decides to make something up. The rules we make here, though, should be considered "set."

My concern was what darthxodus mentioned.

If you want to be compatible with DCI to allow double-reporting, and have set rules that differ in some way from DCI, then the items which would prevent a venue from playing within the DCI system should be optional to prevent alienating those who want their stuff reported but do not feel comfortable bending the DCI rules in any way, even for a custom map that "everyone" agrees is cool.

I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere, but what happened with the new initative rule?