good or bad or what?

discuss

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Odd, I think. Basically if you lose or draw there is no way of gaining bonus points. Only wining gives a bonus and only for gaining 3, 4 or 5 objectives.

So if game was won 3-2 in 5 turns the loser still gets 1 point and the winner 31, the same as winning 3-0 in 3 turns.

It did result in a spread of points so I guess it achieved what it set out to achive and with larger number of players not so many players would have played the same opponent more than once.

I actually agree with them that the last round should be as the scores dictate regardless of previous games (yes, even after playing the same opponent back to back at call to arms! Mark may disagree ofcourse   )

So if game was won 3-2 in 5 turns the loser still gets 1 point and the winner 31,

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Below is the section from the rules pack :-

There is also a Victory Bonus Score applied. This based on how many of
the objectives you have achieved in comparison to your opponent.
Action Winner’s Score
Massacre – all five objectives met 3
Major Victory – 4 objectives met. 2
Minor Victory – 3 objectives met. 1


You are correct it is in comparison to the opponents score so that's not so bad.
With this scheme I'd just give both sides 1 point per objective achieved and you still need some sliding scale for the number of turns played imho.

here's a fundamental question: In epic tournaments, should the scale of the win irrelevant except for the purpose of distinguishing players who would otherwise would have the same score?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

I thought the points system was pretty good. Sufficient to differentiate players and the emphasis firmly on the Win/Loss/Draw record. Could be tweaked a little bit in respect to the bonus points - I would make it bonus points equal to difference in VPs. I'd also give losers negative points equal to difference in VPs.

I didn't really like the final round setup. One, I want to play against a variety of people and  armies. Two, the more round-robinish it is, the fairer the result. Third, if you are in 3rd or 4th place going into the last game, your chances of winning are unfairly slim as you now need a draw on top table to be in with any sort of chance, whereas if it were a "normal" round there's a good chance you'd be playing against either 1st or 2nd place and have destiny more in your own hands.

When you make it to Euston for a game I'll be using my 3rd place certificate as an objective marker!  

       

The problem I had with the point system was that there was no imperative to try and win in three turns.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Hmm, combine that with more time and you could have a lot of 'boring' armies

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I found the points system at C2A put the emphasis on winning the game rather than going for bonus points in extra turns.

I didn't think it was worth dragging most games out to a 4th turn as it was a big risk to try to gain an extra point or two at the expense of losing twenty points if the dice rolls went bad.

As TRC stated (in another thread)I think this system would suit tournaments or leagues where lots of games were played.

In most tournaments where there are only 3-6 games a WPS style system is needed to make the difference in final positions.

this is a pretty interesting discussion.

from a certain point of view, I think the scale of a win is not important. I'm thinking something along the lines of chess here: Either you win or your lose (or you accept a draw or have a stalemate). If you lost vast amounts of your 'army' in winning it doesn't matter. Indeed, if you sacrifice you most important pieces to secure a win, queen, rooks etc then this is spectacular, great, and exciting play.

in epic, if you sacrifice your BTS, or give away an other goal in order to trick a win then this also is spectacular and exciting play? In a tournament scene where every goal counts, you're less likely to play this way?

However, we're not play knockout tournaments. And if the points system for the tournament does not provide gradation enough to easily differentiate players, then the WPS system, or something like it, must be necessary. I suspect that the prevailing opinion in this thread is probably right - the GW system is probably better in a league or a tournament with more games.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]