Very politely answered, Slipspace. Nicer than my first response to you.
What I'm saying is the difference in VP
score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents ...
But why would we want to know this? Outside Multiple-Mirror-match games, "Who is better" really hard to measure.
Therefore the idea that you need
this bigger potential spread of VPs
isn't necessarily the case. It can be helpful for sorting players, yes, but not to the extent that you need to keep such a system if there is something wrong with the core of that system.
It's purpose is exactly for helping sort pairings, and given dozens of RTTs
a weekend, and ... 3 to 6 GTs
a week? 8 a month? The 'core system', is that ITC missions? Or the secondaries (I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but trying to help you, help me, be clear).
Well, I'd point to how many tourneys ran last year, and so many more than the year before, I conclude the system, broken it might be, seems to moving along really well, for 14,000 ITC members, up 4k from the year before.
That is, it's not broken**.
As for systems that use a straight W/L/D approach at tournaments, X-Wing springs to mind. They've just has a 500+ player tournament in the UK
using that scoring system and it worked out just fine. It's the same system they've been using for years.
I have no answer to this as I have no idea X-wing is scored.
- - - - - - - - - --
**If the current ITC secondaries are broken, then I dunno as change will help:
I just looked at a d20
secondary objective generator document ... some guy developed, Steve something? Sorry, not enough memory to recall his name.
Anyway, it looks fun. I'd be perfectly happy to drop the present ITC misson set for this one. Or play EW
missions 1-3 & 5-6. I'm not married to the ITC missions, or EW
or any in particular. I'll play even if there's a Ro-Sham-Bo dreadsock between rounds 4 and 5. I have the 3e missions saved paper. "This is Heavy!" being a memorable one.
If the d20
one were to be adapted (unlikely) I'd alter my present aeldari builds. So would everyone else, and the Bitch&Complain cycle would start anew: "D20
secondaries have skewed the meta! D20ers have ruined the game!"
You know it'd happen:
"Oh, no, there's h2h objectives! Charging and Fight phase objectives. I play Tau!"
"I play guard and I dun wanna buy Bullgryn!""
Same if we all (ITC) went with CA19 EW
missions. List builds would alter, and the B&C cycle would be about *that*. I've been watching Dakka poster "Twighlight Pathways" batreps. Except for the last two, they're all mission cards. This, not the slightest, made watching his videos any less enjoyable. Good battles and humorous, too. Check 'em out!
Anyway, after all is said, and very little done ...
It seems to have been this way since I started in 4e, and the older Rogue Trader 1e guys I know say the same thing. Factions of players are always going to find something 'broken' in the game. And I'm going to continue to come back to the same silver bullet: git gud. I need to get a T-shirt with that.
And rumors of 9e are getting stronger. Damnit. I'd like to *not* buy replacement codices for another 2 years.