Denzark
11-22-2010, 06:34 AM
Having just returned from the above event, I am intending 3 posts on this. Firstly, as titled, my major impression of the whole event - how soft scoring has soured it somewhat.
Secondly, I will input the scores, so you can debate over how each army did, I will also extrapolate the BATTLES ONLY data so you can see how the codicies match on just game results.
Lastly I will, in the Oubliette, give a recce report of Nottingham from the point of view of a visitor whose alcohol stream has a bloood problem.
Anyhoo, back to soft scores. Whilst debated at some length when they introduced this format, a quick recap. Win = 3, Draw = 1, Loss = 0. Add the results of five games. Take an average score from all the armies playing EACH CODEX. Then, each player having been asked to vote for one of his five opponents as 'Best Army', factor this in: 1 point for 1 best army vote, 3 points for 2 best army votes, 5 points for 3 or more best army votes. Add a player's best army vote to his battle results, then the player of each race who has the largest margin of difference between race average and his total combined score, is the winner for that race. The overall winner is the race winner with the largest margin of difference. In the event ofyour race only being represented once, the race average is taken to be 5. In the event of a tie, the judges decide who has the best roster. Not in terms of compostion, but presentation!
How this didn't work for me:
After 5 games, I was the highest scoring Chaos Marine Player (there were only 9 of us, compared to 21 BA players.) with 3 wins, 1 draw, and a loss = 10pts. Receiving 1 best army vote, my score was 11. The 2 second score lists received 3 points for best army votes (both were dual lash-oblits - who decided these were their best opponents I don't know.) So all 3 of us tied for 1st Chaos - it must been decied on rosters - hence my bite at the win was missed because of my roster - a simple neat, well typed A4 sheet is no longer enough.
Before you tell me to dry my eyes and soldier on, consider this. The top scoring Space Wolf Player, who accumulated the most points overall in the tournament, had 18 points. 4 wins = 12, 1 draw = 13, and 3+ best army votes for 18. So an excellent player who 60% of his opponents thought he bought the best army and had the best game with them.
The overall winner was one of 2 Dark Eldar players. He only had 13 overall points. Based on army averages, his margin turned out to be higher than the SW player.
Quite frankly, having been told I was working against all the other players in my race, doing better than all of them and then failing to win based on my roster is not my cup of tea - I would rather have been beaten on the basis of being tabled 5 times. But how someone with nearly 50% more points than the overall winner achieved is not walking away with the trophy is totally beyond me.
Final thoughts:
If you're running a tournament, sure, recognise fair play. Recognise painting. Recognise the fact someone hasn't cheese-spammed with their list. Recognise the best fancy dress or the loudest WAAAAGH (My Blood for the Blood God will always be louder).
BUT, if you are going to do it, do it as a separate award (like a poker side pot), with no influence on overall tournament champion. Because the word 'tournament' implies competitive play. And the only way to show who is the best competitive player is who wins the most games.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS. How would I differentiate between playes who win the same amount of games? VP. What if by coincidence 2 players have same wins and same VPs? Clearly this can only be resolved by an underwater knife fight, or naked twister.
Stand by for further with regards to the overall results soon.
Secondly, I will input the scores, so you can debate over how each army did, I will also extrapolate the BATTLES ONLY data so you can see how the codicies match on just game results.
Lastly I will, in the Oubliette, give a recce report of Nottingham from the point of view of a visitor whose alcohol stream has a bloood problem.
Anyhoo, back to soft scores. Whilst debated at some length when they introduced this format, a quick recap. Win = 3, Draw = 1, Loss = 0. Add the results of five games. Take an average score from all the armies playing EACH CODEX. Then, each player having been asked to vote for one of his five opponents as 'Best Army', factor this in: 1 point for 1 best army vote, 3 points for 2 best army votes, 5 points for 3 or more best army votes. Add a player's best army vote to his battle results, then the player of each race who has the largest margin of difference between race average and his total combined score, is the winner for that race. The overall winner is the race winner with the largest margin of difference. In the event ofyour race only being represented once, the race average is taken to be 5. In the event of a tie, the judges decide who has the best roster. Not in terms of compostion, but presentation!
How this didn't work for me:
After 5 games, I was the highest scoring Chaos Marine Player (there were only 9 of us, compared to 21 BA players.) with 3 wins, 1 draw, and a loss = 10pts. Receiving 1 best army vote, my score was 11. The 2 second score lists received 3 points for best army votes (both were dual lash-oblits - who decided these were their best opponents I don't know.) So all 3 of us tied for 1st Chaos - it must been decied on rosters - hence my bite at the win was missed because of my roster - a simple neat, well typed A4 sheet is no longer enough.
Before you tell me to dry my eyes and soldier on, consider this. The top scoring Space Wolf Player, who accumulated the most points overall in the tournament, had 18 points. 4 wins = 12, 1 draw = 13, and 3+ best army votes for 18. So an excellent player who 60% of his opponents thought he bought the best army and had the best game with them.
The overall winner was one of 2 Dark Eldar players. He only had 13 overall points. Based on army averages, his margin turned out to be higher than the SW player.
Quite frankly, having been told I was working against all the other players in my race, doing better than all of them and then failing to win based on my roster is not my cup of tea - I would rather have been beaten on the basis of being tabled 5 times. But how someone with nearly 50% more points than the overall winner achieved is not walking away with the trophy is totally beyond me.
Final thoughts:
If you're running a tournament, sure, recognise fair play. Recognise painting. Recognise the fact someone hasn't cheese-spammed with their list. Recognise the best fancy dress or the loudest WAAAAGH (My Blood for the Blood God will always be louder).
BUT, if you are going to do it, do it as a separate award (like a poker side pot), with no influence on overall tournament champion. Because the word 'tournament' implies competitive play. And the only way to show who is the best competitive player is who wins the most games.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS. How would I differentiate between playes who win the same amount of games? VP. What if by coincidence 2 players have same wins and same VPs? Clearly this can only be resolved by an underwater knife fight, or naked twister.
Stand by for further with regards to the overall results soon.