Hena, we agree that for terrain there has to be a compromise. But I'm not sure that this should be in the form of 12 pieces of terrain and they will be 4 of that type, 4 of this type and 4 of that and they have to be of that size and shape and best of all put on fixed places. I'd prefer to have tables with different amounts of terrain to have players not playing the same game every time. I'm also one of the big supporters of scenarios at tournaments, which has sadly come out of fashion. Replacing the need of flexibility with the plan-ability so many tournament players seem to crave nowadays (no dig here, just my impression).

Ginger, there are a lot of people who go to tournaments to win and they select race and army-composition to that end.
And some go out of their way to win which includes choosing an army/race that gives them all advantages and puts their opponent at a disadvantage. And they will calculate how many and what kind of victories they need and what to do if they don't manage that in the first place..

IMHO for this reason "serious" tournament players, do not want tables with mixed amounts of terrain, scenarios and scoring that favour wins over everything else, because they can't plan ahead that much and it makes contingency plans more difficult.
Look at the ETC mechanism of matchmaking. The teams choose who plays whom - and there are players whose only task it is to draw or stall. It's not about having a game of Warhammer and win, but about creating armies that deny the opponent to have a decent game where they would have a chance to win.
What sense is it to have a game where you know at the start that nobody will win ?

Again I do not say this is wrong, if you are one of the players who like that kind of thing it's great, but if you are going to a tournament and hope to have some games that are comparable to "ordinary" games and with results that are not predetermined that much, you might look for a different approach.

The scoring system is influenced by the people who makes them and influences the people who play by them.
If you design a scoring system most players choose something that suits them. That's the reason why we nowadays have best general scores (no painting, no sportsmanship), no scenarios and predictability as far as possible. If you are born into this system or play it long enough you will find it the best one. That doesn't mean it is really the best one for everybody or the hobby, but it doesn't mean either it's bad or wrong.

For a tournament you will have to define the goals and the target audience and than choose a fitting scoring system.

Problem for me in UK system is that it does support the idea of delaying victory in turn 3 to aim for stronger win on turn 4.

>Snip

personally I disagree with the prepositions that winning is above all, there are certainly degrees of victory in any game, I also disagree strongly that the system used over the weekend is in any way more fair or representative of players winning, you can table 3 opponents 5-0 and have two losing draws and finish behind someone with 5 winning draws who didn't win a game, for my money that is every bit as bad and defeats the stated aim that someone who wins more games should always score more than someone who wins less.... it's also equally as unlikely to happen....

in the UK system there is *always* a reason to keep playing and try to reduce the deficit in a game, even if you can't win, by reducing the winning margin from 4 goals to 2 through smart play you can often improve your standing in the event through an extra few points gained, there is literally no reason to do this in the EEC system

This is a misconception there is no winning draw.
The Epic rules state that if nobody won at the end of the game the player who scored more victory points at the end of the game is declared winner - not winner second rate, just winner.
So what you call a winning draw is rules wise no better or worse than any other victory. A better phrase would be victory by points or by tie-breaker, but it is a victory. So if you have 5 wins by points it's rules-wise just as valuable as winning 5 games by goals.

I agree, but by having only the winners score reduced, you have at large the same effect - reducing his gain on points relative to you, but you will not influence the value of a win and the score relative to winners.

For me the critique that 2 win by points is the same as 3 by objectives is legitimate - but I'd solve that by rewarding 3 points for wins by point as well.

I don't see a problem that winning in a blowout rewards the same as winning a close game. I don't think encouraging blowouts is a good idea.

What about that getting beaten very marginally on VPs gets the loser the same as being blown out?

Though the 3 for win, 2 for VP win, 1 for VP loss and 0 for loss does take that into account.
.