Einstein couldn't of worded a better arguement.Jeridian said:Not necessarily, you could win 6 minor victorys and have less VP's than a guy who won 2 massacres.
It will always come down to this, who should win the tournament:
A) The guy with the most games won (3-1-0).
B) The guy with the highest VP's (20-0).
I vote for A.
As for encouraging Massacres as beneficial to the game, assuming for a moment the GT is "The primary purpose of our Tournament is to get together so that we can play our favourite game and meet other players who share our interests." quote from GT rulespack.
All Massacres encourage in my experience is gravitation towards armies like IW's, Seer Village, etc, and the uncompromising rules fighting to grasp every point. A Massacre usual occurs when one side is utterly bitch-slapped and that is rarely fun.
Whilst some armies aren't even designed with Massacres in mind- Orks, non-Godzilla Nids, infantry IG all must sacrifice large chunks of their army just to win.
So I'd much rather encourage consistent game winning, regardless of size. This gives armies like IG and Orks a chance, and rewards someone for consistent gameplay.
IW's, et al can still qualify without much effort, but there isn't the absurd situation where such an army has Massacred 2-3 of it's first opponents and doesn't really care about the rest as they've already qualified.
I totally agree with you.
Although, thinking about it Jigplums does have a point - switching to a total VP's earned regardless of own losses would benefit Orks/Guard etc and also be a blessing to IW's and co. It seems the mutually beneficial answer to both styles of list.