whether or not the change is fair....not getting to that argument...
But a child under 15 a) must have a guardian to make it to Nats
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for 2 for the weekend
c) cannot work a partime job to make any outside income to fund a trip to Nats
(don't want to get into "but they COULD...")
That $500 is going to help fund AT LEAST 2 people to Nats.
A kid 15 to 18 a) might need a guardian..depends on the kid and family
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for the weekend
C) Can get a job to help fund the trip to Nats...can earn cash for their needs in Indy.
Please do not jump me with the what ifs and buts...we all know there are exceptions...but no one can budget for them in a situation like this
I think this decision is one of practicality than fairness. Its also a Marketing tool...may or may not have any of the hoped for effect...but unless masters players suddenly change from the folks I have known for 10 years...I doubt this will truly not effect attendance for that age group in any major way.
I won't jump on you for the "what ifs and but," however, I will point out how utterly illogical that post is.
Lets say a kid plays Pokemon. He obviously doesn't have a job as he is a kid, but he has money to consistently make tier 1 decks and go to all of the tournaments. So, his actual expense on Pokemon thus far, is, lets say the price of his cards. Lets just say $300. AND, lets say gas. $100/tournament. So, lets assume it cost him $300 for his cards and $100 for gas.
Lets say an adult plays Pokemon. He obviously has a job as he is an adult. He has money to conisistenly make tier 1 decks and go to all of the tournaments. So, his actual expense on Pokemon thus far, lets say the price of his cards. Lets say $300. AND, lets say gas. $100/tournament. So, lets assume it cost him $300 for his cards and $100 for gas.
No matter what gets added to the above paragraphs, there a few things that will never change. In fact, the only DIFFERENT factor is food as you to pay for two people to eat instead of one...and, lets be honest, THAT isn't that much. The point is, the kid has to get there somehow: the parent was ALREADY taking off for them to go, its not putting them out "extra." The parent was ALREADY paying for the gas for them to go, its not putting them out "extra." The parent was ALREADY paying for the gas, its not putting them out "extra." The transportation and housing "for 2" cost the same as it does for one. It doesn't matter who's job is paying for the cards, they are either willing to or not.
The moral of the story is, it cost the same (generally speaking) for everyone to play the game. This horrible idea that it cost more for kids to play the game is ridiculous. In fact, Juniors in particular, can win way more with worse decks and sustain their deck building with their winnings, making it way cheaper for them.
I find it hard to believe that kids are going to show up in droves with this arguement:
"Hey Mom, any chance you will drive us 4 hours to states?"
Her brow furrows as she places a hand on her hips. "Um, no," she asked.
"But, Mom, IF I win, I can get $500 to go to the next tournament!"
Her eyebrows raised, interest genuinely piqued. "Really? How long will this last and what are the chances of you actually winning?"
"Well, the tournament will probably last most of the day."
"Losing interest..." his mother quickly interrupted, feigning boredom, "what are the chances of you winning?"
"Umm, I don't know. I mean, I only have a modified starter deck, but Johnny gave me two extra Garchomps one of the them is even the good one!"
---------- Post added 02/08/2013 at 01:15 PM ----------
Additionally, the kids don't have to pay bills and the adults that play do. The OTHER point I forgot to make was that, while every "sacrifice" the parent has to make for the kid to play (like, taking off from work), the adult player ALSO has to make (like, taking off from work).