[torgoch]

Had an email from Brian Aderson concerning the GT tournament system next season. He's confirmed they returning to the old scoring system.

I understand this is primarily due to complaints from WFB players. I can understand their grievance, but having played under both systems, I have so say I prefer the current scoring method for 40K.

Brian's reasoning was that they wanted to remain as close to the book as possible. Sadly I suspect not much thought went into the BGB's VP margins, but lack of thought has never stopped GW runing with something in the past, so I shouldn't be suprised.

A pity GW can't use two scoring systems, once for each system, altough i can understand the wish to avoid confusion.

 

[Skcuzzlebumm]

it is a real shame i to think the new system lends itself well to 40k aswell. Ahh well shame really but what can you do if like you said they seem to not want to use 2 different systems for the 2 different systems.

 

[Jeridian]

I tolerated the old system since I didn't know any better, going back to it after the new system is not that easy.

The old system required Massacre's, hence you had to Massacre all your opponents by being as ruthless as possible. And also effectively removed Imperial Guard, non-Godzilla Nids and Orks from ever doing well as they are expected to lose a fair amount of their army to win a game (i.e. not massacre). Whilst making armies that rarely lost stuff whilst winning (MEq, IW's, Skimmer Spam) almost guaranteed.

The new system merely encouraged you to win, whether you did this by the skin of your teeth with a 'medium' army, or still took a 'hard-core' army. In the hands of a good player any army had the chance to do well, of course there where still auto-winners like IW's and BA but now other armies have a chance too.

I far prefer the new system- to change back to the old because Fantasy players complained (WTF? This is 40k.) would blow big time and I'd think twice before going- as all the old IW regulars would reappear in force, arguing over every VP, etc.

To change back to the old without bringing back Sportsmanship, Painting, Quiz, etc would probably put me off- I'm not there to WAAC off, I'm there to enjoy close games.

 

[Exodite]

it is a real shame i to think the new system lends itself well to 40k aswell.

I agree, I believe the new system worked well. It encouraged players to take balanced armies that in theory could deal with any opponent. It is a shame, I do not see why they can't have different systems for Fantasy and 40k, it can't be that difficult can it?

 

[torgoch]

email Aderson at and encourage everyone who prefers the new system to do likewise. I've already done so.

[email protected]

It may make a difference, it may not. But if no-one emails him, then we are definitely stuck with the 20-10-0 system.

 

[Inquisitor_Malice]

What was the 20-10-0 system like. Why is it really different than the 3-1-0? Was it VP differential to get 10 and large VP differential to get 20?

 

[Jezlad]

Aye, it's the system in the BGB.

I too prefer the new system. It was refereshing to see an Ork list finish top.

With the 20-10-0 system he would of scored less and finished further down the tables.

 

[Exodite]

What was the 20-10-0 system like. Why is it really different than the 3-1-0? Was it VP differential to get 10 and large VP differential to get 20?

The 20-10-0 system was taken directly from p86 of the rulebook

 

[Jeridian]

What was the 20-10-0 system like.

The old system required Massacre's, hence you had to Massacre all your opponents by being as ruthless as possible. And also effectively removed Imperial Guard, non-Godzilla Nids and Orks from ever doing well as they are expected to lose a fair amount of their army to win a game (i.e. not massacre). Whilst making armies that rarely lost stuff whilst winning (MEq, IW's, Skimmer Spam) almost guaranteed.

The new system simply encouraged you to win, whether you did this by the skin of your teeth with a 'medium' army, or still took a 'hard-core' army. In the hands of a good player any army had the chance to do well, of course there where still auto-winners like IW's and BA but now other armies have a chance too.

 

[torgoch]

If other FlameOn / Leamington Steele folks have an opnion on this, any chance of motivating them?

I'm friends with FlameOn, but not Flameon, if you know what i mean.

 

[Prophaniti]

I'm from Leamington Steele (I came up with the name) and I've already sent an email stating my preference for the new system.

I prefer it for the simplicity and I also echo Jeridian's views on army variety.
I'm fairly convinced that the atmosphere at the heats this year was a lot more relaxed than previous years.

Re. Leamington Steele, it's basically the name GW Leamington Spa's vets go by when out and about. I'm the only member with experience of more than 1 GT. Exodite and myself are the only two who are particularly vocal on the internet anyway.

 

[jigplums]

email sent guys

 

[Skcuzzlebumm]

I'm friends with FlameOn, but not Flameon, if you know what i mean.

There's no such thing as "only friends with flame on" once you know about us your already been assimilated :lol:

Stick it up on ou place dude, we don't ever mind you spikey lads popping over.

 

[MarzM]

Well i know who you are too, but im not part of flame on! lol

I had mixed feeling about the new system;-

Good Points were that it gave the outside armies a chance, ie orks, guard, necrons etc, I liked that, i got to play armies that i wouldn't normally have played at GT. On the other hand, if it was a close game, and you only just lost by about 10pts or something, you were not rewarded for your efforts!

Perhaps a compromise! 6-4-2-1-0

6 = win by more than 750 pts
4 = win by less than 750 pts
2 = draw (less than 300 pts between the 2 opponents)
1 = loss by less than 750 pts
0 = you got spanked!

This would mean that you would get rewarded if you only just lost out, but still fought hard!

just a thought!

MarzM

 

[LongBeard]

E-mail sent!

 

[Exodite]

Perhaps a compromise! 6-4-2-1-0

6 = win by more than 750 pts
4 = win by less than 750 pts
2 = draw (less than 300 pts between the 2 opponents)
1 = loss by less than 750 pts
0 = you got spanked!

This would mean that you would get rewarded if you only just lost out, but still fought hard!

just a thought!

That’s an interesting idea, I agree with you that just loosing your game by very minimal margins and then receiving nothing for your efforts is frustrating. However you would have to be careful as the idea you are proposing is verging towards the old system in that it encourages players to take armies that can massacre there opponents, which will ultimately lead to less variation as certain armies (Orks, Tyranids etc...) struggle to achieve those large victories which in turn makes them less viable as tournament armies.

To be honest the only way that you can see if a scoring system works is to try it out first hand, I think that your idea has lots of potential, but without first hand experience of what effect the system has on the armies and games means that any criticism or praise made is only opinion based.

 

[jigplums]

if you have an army that can massacre, does it not make you more likely to win anyway?

 

[Prophaniti]

Indeed it does. However what the 3,1,0 system allows is for armies that can win, but not usually by a massacre, to do well. For example Imperial Guard will typically take a lot of casualties even when they win. This encourages more diversity in viable armies at the tournament, which in my view is a good thing.

The other difference between the systems is down to whether you think that winning big is more important than just winning. With the 20-10-0 scoring the winner could well be someone that has lost a game, with 3-1-0 you really have to win them all.

After 6 rounds with 150 players you can have 2 players on 3 wins, that's when winning big matters, because the final placing will be decided on net VP's.