Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im running a tournament in January http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224035.page and I'm thinking about using a W/D/L + Bonus Battle Points vs using the tiered victory scoring system they are using at the GTs.

To demonstrate.

Under W/D/L system: Win=15pts, Draw=10pts, Lose=5pts + up to 3 battle points per scenario

Whereas the GT system: Massacre=17pts, Solid Victory=14pts, Minor Victory=12, Draw=0, Minor Loss=8pts, Solid Loss=6pts, Massacred=3pts + up to 3BPs

I prefer the first simplying because it doesnt punish a player who manages to squeek out a win against another solid player while another player massacres a newbie. It just make more sense to me in a 3 round event.

Thoughts/suggestions?

The problem you run into with only the 3 scoring possibilities is that, even with the 3 bonus point possibilities you can wind up having a lot of ties for first or other places. So unless you are going to be throwing in painting, comp, and sportsmanship scores you may have headaches to deal with at the end of the tourney when deciding who wins what. Granted, the multi-tiered system can cause some headaches and seem slightly unfair because hey, a win is a win right? But in reality all the massacre/major/minor is really doing is saying hey you get a lot of points but if someone else was better at winning they get just a tiny bit more for a tie breaker.
Just my two cents.

Shouldn't draw = 10pts

I like the 15/10/5 (plus bonus points for secondary objectives) system best. Some armies (*cough* DWARVES *cough*) have an extremely tough time getting Massacres, and are pretty much guaranteed to never win a tournament if you differentiate by vp tiers.

But you should make those bonus points things like killing the enemy general, and killing his most expensive unit, and holding a quadrant on your opponent’s side of the table, to give the edge to aggressive players as opposed to the ones who would try to just kill a couple of things for the minor win and then hide.

I played in a really good event nine days ago. Rules were as follows:

http://www.dangerplanetgames.com/dpnuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14370

In this one, there were three generic bonus points each game, AND a two point bonus objective based on the scenario. This worked really well.

I really liked their Sportsmanship scoring system too. Five simple questions after each game, check all that apply. You got two points per check.

Precision: My opponent didn't fudge guess ranges, move units sloppily, or try to squeak out an extra few inches on the charge.
Efficiency: My opponent played in a quick and timely manner, and didn't try to stall the game. Experience should be taken into account.
Composure: My opponent was gracious in victory and noble in defeat. He kept his cool when the dice went south, and didn't whine about my list.
Generosity: In a case where there was no clear answer to the rules, and it could go either way, my opponent defaulted to my interpretation.
Cameraderie: My opponent helped make the game fun; both of us felt engaged and had a good time trying to crush each other's armies!

I'm a fan of a bracket type system putting more emphasis on winning, but I guess that's just my background in sports. run a two day event and divide the participants up into pools of four. first day everybody plays everybody in their pool using your W/D/L points, then depending on how many pools you have you can seed the players in a bracket. so say you have four pools, you could take the top two players from each pool into he championship bracket and then seed them this time if you win by one victory point, you win and move on culminating in a final showdown between the best two players that weekend. But like I said, I think it's just because I have such a background in sports and am used to running Baseball tournaments.

Not feasible in a 1 day event.

I think a well organized tournament matters much more than any one particular scoring system. With the number of players you expect, your proposed system should work just fine. Just make sure to pair properly! A computer spreadsheet helps immensely with this.

I knew it wasn't feasible in a 1 day event, that's why I said do a two day event. I think it would be fun. maybe you could do another bracket for those who didn't make the cut.

gardeth wrote:Im running a tournament in January http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224035.page and I'm thinking about using a W/D/L + Bonus Battle Points vs using the tiered victory scoring system they are using at the GTs.

To demonstrate.

Under W/D/L system: Win=15pts, Draw=10pts, Lose=5pts + up to 3 battle points per scenario

Whereas the GT system: Massacre=17pts, Solid Victory=14pts, Minor Victory=12, Draw=0, Minor Loss=8pts, Solid Loss=6pts, Massacred=3pts + up to 3BPs

I prefer the first simplying because it doesnt punish a player who manages to squeek out a win against another solid player while another player massacres a newbie. It just make more sense to me in a 3 round event.

Thoughts/suggestions?

Well, you're not punishing a player for squeaking out a win, but you're not rewarding a player who tables his opponent either. IMO, there is a difference between barely winning and tabling your opponent, and at least in tournies, it should be reflected. In addition, the tiered scoring system makes it easier to actually determine a winner in shorter (3-round) tournies.

I don't think there should be the distinction. Why?

If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.

There are a few ideas bouncing around in my head for discouraging power gaming in a Tournament. Not all, or even any, are necessarily good or practical!

Also, in terms of Sportsmanship scoring, I would make it a blind score. Essentially, each player has say, 5 Sportsmanship points at their disposal. After all their games have been played, they mark down on their own card how they are distributing these amongst their opponents. Rather than judging whether or not they enjoyed the game, they are nominating their *favourite* opponent. Still abusable should you come up against a friend of course, but a lot more meaningful in the long run.

Sports is a matter of picking your poison. I really like the above system; I also like giving a couple extra points for favorite opponent votes.

A method that minimizes any kind of cheating or collusion is to rank your opponents. 3 for the best, 2 for the middle, 1 for the least fun (or whatever points you choose). This theoretically removes the possibility of chipmunking, but still gives a bad sport/cheater the ability to rank his opponents dishonestly; for example, giving the lowest score to the person he thinks is doing the best in the tournament and thus is greater competition. It also adds some more bookkeeping and delay to the very end of the tournament, as everyone has to remember and rank their opponents, and the organizers have to make sure everyone submits their rankings.

A system that’s seen some discussion lately is an escalating progression. Specifically for bad sports. Make sports scoring a simple yes/no question. If a person gets one bad sports vote in a tournament, it’s a minor deduction. Say 2 points out of a possible 80 overall. If they get two scores it’s progressively worse; say 6 points. If they get three downchecks, maybe it’s a 12pt or a 15pt deduction, or an automatic disqualification. The idea behind this is that anyone can have a bad game, or just not get along with a particular opponent. Or be downchecked by an attempted chipmunker. But if it happens multiple times, the odds are much better than there’s actually a problem with the player.

Personally I think people respond better to positive reinforcement, as in the system with the five questions I detailed above.

The Five Questions are a good idea indeed, but I think I would view them more as thought guides. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a game, I don't feel the need to over analyse things.

Also, the one about Generosity seems badly worded. It suggests that a good player just accepts his opponent is correct. Probably the best way to proceed with anything like that is the reasonability factor. Rules Lawyers will always try to force their opinion, however wrong it might be. To allow this for fear of getting a bad Sportsmanship is wrong. And yet, if you agree for flows sake on one rule, and your opponent returns the favour at some point, all is well, as he is clearly more concerned with getting the game played in a smooth fashion than just quibbling to buggery over a wording or pronounciation!

Of course, the trouble is that with any system, there are explotiable flaws. I don't really know what 'chipmunking' is or where the term comes from, but I'm guessing it's not good.

I have to say though, that I for one would have the Sportsmanship score be make or break in a Tournament. The winner might have taken a really powerful list, but as long as he wasn't an arrogant arse, who feels it was his ability rather than list that factored most, I wouldn't be that bothered. If he was a friendly opponent happy to shoot the breeze, who cares what his list was like? One thing I like to do when I beat someone is to point out parts where I though it was about to go south. Rather than be derogatory, I am complimenting my opponent, and hopefully arranging myself a closer (and dare I say, more worthwhile) game next time.

I think another thing would be to award points for the more unique forces out there. Again, this is purely personal preference/snobbery. I myself like to field odd armies made up of units rarely or never seen. If this is handled correctly, it could encourage Tournaments more towards a way to get interesting games in than a way to win accolades. Even if it has little to no bearing on the final score, perhaps a trophy for the most unique force would be a nice touch. In itself it has a certain prestige, and might encourage the less competitive players in with their heavily themed and converted armies? That it acknowledges the unique compositions rather than painting etc, it is seperate from best army.

I dunno. I'm just a non-competitive gamer looking to make Tournaments more appealing to others like himself!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.

A simple win/loss/draw encourages people to, once they get a lead, preserve that lead...So they do thier best NOT to engage in combat, which leads to a boring game.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, the one about Generosity seems badly worded. It suggests that a good player just accepts his opponent is correct. Probably the best way to proceed with anything like that is the reasonability factor. Rules Lawyers will always try to force their opinion, however wrong it might be.

Thus pointing out the need for any tournament to have a written FAQ available BEFORE the tournament for the players to look at, prior to making thier lists.

skyth wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.

A simple win/loss/draw encourages people to, once they get a lead, preserve that lead...So they do thier best NOT to engage in combat, which leads to a boring game.

A simple w/l/d might encourage that, but thats where the extra BPs come into play. Earning those points is what will seperate the overall winners from the rest and as long as the criteria for earning those points involve getting stuck in someway (killing enemy heroes/general, capturing standards, getting in your enemies deployment zone, etc) that should keep people from getting the lead and trying to hide.

I have to admit to limited Tournament experience, but why would you try to avoid combat?

I don't tend to plan that far ahead in a game. I'll know what I want to achieve, how to achieve, and roughly when my opponent will be past the point of no return. However, I am aware that games can swing dramtically with just the odd combat won here or there, especially in fantasy (my main realm of expertise).

You know, I fancy a thread about preferred Tournament Scoring etc. I shall have my tab then start on methinks.

MDG, the avoidance comments come more from the UKGTs. When they’ve done simple W/L/D with no other differentiating factors, people have observed players using maneuverable shooty/magic armies to snipe enough points for the win and then disengage.

This is less of an issue In Warhammer than in 40k, as WH armies generally aren’t as maneuverable, and march-blocking allows you to pin people down better. But it’s still possible to some extent, which is why I recommended making the secondary objectives ones which require more aggressive play.

Ah fair enough.

Certainly for 40k, I would dispose of any and all non-objective related VPs, including KPs.

The Missions to my mind should be a test not just of the players capability to lead, but also to write a balanced list. Personally, I wouldn't reveal them until the the players were at the setting up stage. This means a truly flexible list is the order of the day, as you just don't know what is going to secure you victory.

The second VPs come into a game like 40k, things get unbalanced due to the relative power of each unit being more disparate. With Fantasy, everything can be a threat, and even the hardest unit will have disastrous consequences to face from a bad combat. VPs work well that way, as it becomes very difficult to play VP denial.

Hi Gardeth, this is what I'm using for my 2000pt tournament:

Victory Point Margin Winner’s Battle Points Loser’s Battle Points 0-49 10 10 50-199 11 9 200-399 12 8 400-599 13 7 600-799 14 6 800-999 15 5 1000-1249 16 4 1250-1499 17 3 1500-1749 18 2 1750-1999 19 1 2000+ 20 0