Right, I'll let this run until 31 December then a decision will be taken.

If you vote for change please post suggestions below (Chris, can you post your proposal again. Its getting lost in the last thread).

Hmm? It wasn't serious, just a random idea!
Twas footy league stile 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss, scored per game. Then x amount for a new race, say 5.
Follows comments at last tourney asking if 2 day tournaments can't score higher than 1 days.

Upside is that those who play in longer tournaments get more points.

Downsides is it doesn't reflect actual play in a tournament. If say you get two random draws someone could have a couple of easy wins before being crushed by Dave (or Annihilated by Gavin who suddenly rolls six for everything!) so not win the tournament. You could also score more points than someone who does win - say by winning each game 2-1 whilst they win five games 4-0 and draw the last one 2-1.

An alternative to that is give everyone the points they score under the WPS system. This then has problems of how you convert GW tourneys to it.

_________________
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

Using the WPS scoring system is fine as long as at every tournament the goals archived are recorded (so 3-1 or the points diffence for draws). That way I can calculate the correct WPS score automatically. This info is not always recorded at the moment.

My two penneth, as per my vote:
10 for first etc stick with.
3 or 2 points for different army - still encourages new armies but doesn't dilute 2nd place and below as much.

I'd keep the points system the same,maybe have 7th and 8th place score points.

If we do want a slight change then drop the new army score to 3 points but add in a new catergory of 1point for using a rarely seen formation.

The idea being to encourage players to try other units similar to the new army points encouraging a more varried showing of armies.

We could come up with an agreed list of formations hopefully for each race that are rarely seen.

Warlord in a Marine army,Banshees in an Eldar army etc.

Ok, with 8 places scoring it would be 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1. I'd also agree with either 2 or 3 for each race. Not sure about the rare units scoring.

I would go for the current scoring system but with 2pts for a new army, still encourages new armies to be taken but it means that a player cant come second and score equal to or more championship points than a tournament winner.

Also I would give a bonus point to people coming 1st, 2nd and 3rd at a two day tourni.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]

We could give a bonus point to anyone winning more than 3 games.

This could only happen at a 2 day event and possible by only the top 2 or 3 players.

I voted for no change but like some of the ideas being put forward.

Points down to 8th place and 1 point per race would be my preference.

Eight places scoring sounds good to me, but I would like to keep the 4pts for a new army as it forces variety into the tournaments.

Lack of bikes in a Whitescar list is a little far fetched though in my opinion.

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

I do like the 4 points for every new army. However this is unconnected to having an army for every published list.

_________________
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

Ok, Thanks Mephiston for setting up the poll, this was always an 'experimental' idea from the outset, and it has been gratifying how it has worked. Some thoughts

The initial idea was to provide a "F1" style scoring system to reward those who did well by coming in the top three of each tournament; hence the 2 point distinction between the top positions. If we feel that additional scoring is needed for the lower positions, then I would recommend that the whole system be raised eg "12, 9, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1" although IMHO that is probably too many positions.

The most contentious part seems to be the points for playing other armies. The main idea here was to encourage people to field more than one army in the year in order to gain a more rounded view of the way the various armies were playing from a statistical perspective, by reducing the impact of the players skill associated with a given army. I would judge this a moderate success because 12 of the 14 people who did field multiple armies also gained tournament points. Only 4 of the top 18 players fielded a single army throughout the year, most notably Steve Gullick who would have come 2= with Matt Otter if these 'race' points are ignored.

IMHO we should leave this part alone as well. The effect is quite significant and intentionally so. However the impact is much reduced if everyone fields three or four different armies during the year (thus gaining 8-12 points) - which was the intention after all.

Perhaps a better question is "How many different 'Tournament capable' armies do people have"? (bearing in mind the GW proxy rule that allows us a degree of latitude in the figures used).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Well I have 5 right now (Marines, Guard, Eldar, Black Legion and Whitescars(proxy)). I've got some orks to start up so probably could have speed freaks and orks by the end of next year too.

Oh, and F1 score 1st to 8th these days Ginger! Although Bernie wants that changed to a medal table if reports are to be belived  

Checking up, it seems the F1 scoring is 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

If people want more scores, perhaps an acceptable compromise might be 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 (seven places), being half the average number of entrants to the competitions in the UK. Any more and there is a danger that I might actually get some tournament points which would never do

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Any more input? One week left.