As Steve pointed out it's 0 for any kind of loss. It's 1 point for a a draw that's no win by objectives and a point difference of less than 300.

So basically
A draw is better than a loss,
A win by points better than a draw
A win by goals better than a win by points

It's really good to talk about things like that.

After reading this thread an following the discussion I would change the scoring form (3/2) - 1- 0 to

5/4 - 1 - 0

This will make offsetting a victory by points with a draw very very unlikely and prevents victories by goals to overwrite easily victories by points. The decision to value a victory by goals as strong as an victory by points plus a draw is made consciously.

If you would like to prevent that it would have to be something like 10/9 - 2 - 0. Define your "philosophy" and you can set the points accordingly.

I have played a number of tournies in the UK and I think the system here works well.

I always have something to fight for in the UK. If we did not have this system where there is always something to fight for I could see myself regularly conceding early in the 2nd turn (or deliberately committing suicide in 5 mins if that is not allowed). This would make me happy as I'd go and grab an early beer, but I'm not sure my opponents would like it.

I also agree that the UK system promotes positive, aggressive play.

I don't see the 'deliberately' extending games beyond the third turn as an issue. Where it has been a possibility I've simply been open about it with my opponent and played moves to ensure I end the game at the end of turn 3 with a fair result. This is more of a technically theoretically possible problem than one I have not been able to deal with when rarely experienced on the table.

Having such a wide range of scores does helpfully separate the final placings when one-day tournies of only three games. Frankly, these tournaments are unlikely to guarantee perfect placings as you need more games for this to happen. However, the UK scene has enough tournies for us to all see over time who the best players are (and in my case are not!). Lastly, I much prefer one day tournies as that leaves the other day of the weekend free - a fair result in a tournies comes second to having a balanced life.

The UK system is not broke and is thoroughly tried and tested over time, and therefore I see no urgent need to change it massively in any way.

_________________
Big Gunz don't fly!

Can't say i was particularly convinced that the scoring system used at the weekend was any better than what's used in the E-UK system.

Personally i like the differentiation between a tenaciously fought minor loss and a tabling, and think that people play all that much harder knowing that despite being on the back foot through a misake or bad dice that if they get it together and really dig in that they can at least minimise a loss, maybe even pull it to a draw with a bit of luck. It also rewards a player on the other side of the spectrum that's willing to take risks and go for the big win, and i think overall both scenarios make for better players. Also, some of my favorite games of epic have been when i've hung on to a game by my fingernails, and have come out feeling that the say 9 or 11 points i've managed to get were worth more than a big win, because i've had to work so hard to get them

By comparison I spent quite a few games at the weekend thinking 'meh, good enough' and just leaving it at that - not really pushing for bold and audacious plays (although being badly sleep deprived didn't really leave me bringing my A game anyway), and to be honest that's not how i like to play the game. Does a scoring system alter the way you play? To a degree i think it does - with a straight win, 'good enough' is fine - with a graded system there's always something more to strive for.

On the idea that a graded points system inordinately favours for instance drop armies, i'd point out that the spread of say top three placings in the UK this year has been pretty varied lists wise, with everything from AMTL, to Nids, to Guard, and Marines all managing to win events, and pretty much every army hitting the top three at some point.

On the issue that you can potentially win bigger in turn 4 - it's pretty rare for it to even come up, and if someone's willing to potentially throw away a win for the chance of a slightly bigger win, then fair play - they stand just as much chance of ending up with less points as more, and possibly even ending with a draw or a loss!

Personally I also don't like scoring systems that encourage things like 'defensive' lists (AKA Gunlines) - i've played against enough Dwarf gunlines in Fantasy in my time to know that's how you suck any kind of joy out of a game. It's fine to do stuff like that for a themed campaign (Such as a siege or suchlike) now and then, but then for me it's not enjoyable to play with or against for long, and tends to end up being tedious at best. Epic for me is at it's best when it's fluid movement rules are used to their fullest effect, and players are dynamically trying to outmanouver each other just as much as they're hoping for good dice.

So anyway, ramble over. In short, i rather like what we're using in the UK

I like it too Richard and although I did bring up the potential for the "delay for a bigger win" scenario (I think in the original thread) because I recently experienced it, in the end I did what I think almost always happens which is to realise that a) it's not worth the risk and b) it's a lame thing to do. I think this might be far more of an issue if the euk system didn't incorporate points for earlier turns, but as it stands right now I think it is pretty much a theoretical risk and nothing more.

I would still prefer to see a separation between the "secondary" effects (goal difference and turn) and the primary win/draw/loss - which is to say that you use goals and turn to differentiate between one winner and another etc. In effect to have two rounds of sorting, one by win/loss/draw, then by "severity".

Partly this is symbolic - I feel like you should always be able to say "the main thing is he won". But partly also because I think the difference between a win and a draw is just much more significant than the difference between two wins in different turns or with one more goal.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I agree completely, well said Richard!

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

EEC system is just short for the system used at the EEC in Berlin, no claim for universal EEC use.


I do not say that using those armies are a must to win. But by looking at the UK scoring system and trying to make the most of it, I'd go for an assault army that can hit when I want and where I want - it is not important whether this is done by drop, air assault or fast transports. I would not choose an army that would be unlikely to win in turn 3 for whatever reasons.
It's not the point whether the supposedly better suited army will really win, but the effect that I will be tempted to use a supposedly better kind of army over an other kind just to maximise the effects of the scoring system. You might never had the conscious thought to maximise on the scoring system, but competitive people starting anew, will.
Just as Hena said, if he would have known about the terrain, he would have chosen Marines instead of Stigmatus, I say if I know the scoring system favours one army over the other I'd consider using it just for this reason - so I prefer a scoring system that does not create a temptation in addition to the temptations created by the game rules.



As far as I can see objectives in the sense of objective markers are no consideration in neither scoring system, so there is no incentive to holding your own in either system.
If you are talking about goals (Richard pointed the ambiguity of the term objectives out to me) than the importance is the same in both systems as Richard won because he has a better goals balance than me.
In fact 1th, 5th, 9th (and 10th) and 13th place were decided on goals balance. Had Largo scored one tournament point more, he would have had your place, because his goals balance was better, so not denying your opponent goals, would have cost you a rank, but luckily or by design you were the only player with 11TP.
Basically the importance of claiming and not loosing goals is the same in both systems.
The difference is that in the UK system the goals balance effects the ranking by tournament point, on the EEC system it does it by tie breaking, which occurs more often using the EEC sytsem, because there is not so much diversity in the tournament scores.



The EEC system honours a close loss, by giving you a better goals balance and the opponent a worse one compared to a big loss. So when you finally end with the same tournament score than anybody else, you will be better off with a close loss than a big loss.

The real difference with the systems is the worth of that close loss in relation to a victory. With the EEC system you can't never score better than anybody who has more wins, by just having close enough losses.
With the UK system, you can do that.


That may be true on a strategic scale on the tactical scale trying to achieve a quick victory may be the quickest way to disaster.

In the end it comes down to personal preference and to what you are used to. Nobody will change his preferences in a thread like this. And it really doesn't matter. The tournament organiser decides on a scoring system and we will play by it, trying to make the most of it - or not

I think the situation with me an Rug is one situation were the system falls apart actually. First to note: I bear no hard feelings to the result as Rug clearly had the upper hand in our game and I fully respect his well earned third place over my fourth. IF I had played better in game 3 or 5 I could have taken the third place, but I did not.

I just want to point out the situation for this whole "Win vs Loss" debate.

I played 3-0 (3), 0-0 (3, time called), 1-0 (4), 2-0 (3), 1-0 (4). 4 Wins, one draw with more than 300 pts lost. In brackets, the turn it ended.
Rug played 2-1, 0-0 (3, time called), 2-1, 5-0, and 0-3. 3 Wins, one draw, one loss.

There, I broke the system. Even if you count the 0-0 as a loss to me and a win to Rug, it is still a "real" lost game on Rug and only one lost by points on me. Now, I don`t know the turns when the games ended for Rug, but I can, just for the sake of it, calculate it in the UK System:
Largo: 29-3, 14-18, 21-11, 26-6, 21-11 for a total of 111 points.
If we assume Rug won all games in Round 3 and lost the last in turn 4 this would have been the following:
Rug: 23-9, 18-14, 23-9, 32-0, 9-23 for a total of 105 points.

In the "football" system it would have been 13 points (4x 3Points Win, 1x 1 Point Draw) for me and 10 points for Rug (3x 3 Point Win, 1x 1 Point Draw, 1x 0 Points Loss).

I think this proves nothing, it s just some number playing with scoring systems. I think everybody can find a system where his place on the ladder woulöd have been different and this whole posting is very close to whining. Please don't see it as that. I just want to point out that brumbaers approach to value victories more than losses fails if small victories are concerned. And, lets face it, these are just some toy soldiers, nothing to get all cooked up for

I had five great games and especially in the last game my head felt like it was on fire because I was a bit intimidated by the Astartes list. I would happily play against anybody I met there again.

_________________
My blog - A man without a mountain of unpainted lead is no real man!

Sorry if i wasn't being particularly clear on the UK scoring system, 4-0 is the highest you can get (the 5th does nothing), and gives you a 32-0 in turn 3, and a 29-3 in turn 4. I've actually managed 4-0's with plenty of the enemy left on the table, it's pretty difficult to table someone unless they're feeding you units afterall!

Our matchup was an uphill struggle for the LATD for a few reasons i think, first off was the terrain - which personally i thought was too sparse. Imo Epic's not meant to be played Warmachine style with a few bits of scenery and lots of open spaces! A good quantity of terrain is critical to some armies (such as Eldar) and how you utilise it with any army is for me an important part of the game. We play fairly dense terrain in the UK and it's certainly never stopped me taking things like Tank Companies and Superheavy Tanks Your bigger disadvantage though was the activation disparity, which gave me free reign at the end of turn 1 (and to a degree turn 2) to really start taking your army apart. I'm generally pretty loathe to run armies with less than 10 activations for that reason unless i'm fairly confident i can keep most of mine alive and strip off some of my opponents fairly rapidly.

Finally, thinking back to the game i'd have split the objectives in my half given your deployment to make it harder for me to get defend the flag, as i was able to effectively take a 2-0 with one unit due to how close all the objectives were to each other. Moving your supreme commanders unit into assault range turn 1 near unactivated units was also perhaps a bit too risky imo, and compounded the activation issues turn 2 when you had a poor rallying phase.