As a TO I often found myself looking for new ways to improve or even bring some novelty to my tournaments. I believe the point system is a key element to work with in order to mod (maybe improve?) the meta for the event and as a consequence the feeling of lots of games.
I know 3 point systems, the 20-0 one that came in Clash of King 201X and the BlackJack (I believe from the australian community? I can be wrong) and [EDITED] Northern Kings’ one:
20-0: Winner takes 15 points, loser 5 and then they add and substract up to 5 points based on attrition (the difference between unit points eliminated).
BlackJack: Winner takes 14 points, loser 7 and then they add and substract up to 4 points based on how many mission objectives each achieved, and add and substract up to 3 points based on attrition.
Northern Kings: Winner takes 15 points, loser 5 and then each add up to 5 points based on how many unit points killed and up to 5 based on scenario Victory Point obtained.
Objective based: Multiple objectives form the scenario and each gives a certain number of Tournament Points. Special objectives and scenarios should be created for this system. The objectives can be pre-selected for each rounds or the players could select them from a limited list. Extra Tournament Points could be added for kill points.
¿Which system do you prefer? ¿Do you know another one? ¿Do you think is important to alter the meta?
We used to run the tournaments at Adepticon for the now defunct Firestorm Armada spaceship game and ended up making a scoring structure that has since been used in other systems, including some Mantic ones. Essentially, it is assigning a Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary objective to each round. The Primary is almost always to score higher than the opponent in the scenario (ie win the game) which awards 7 tournament points. The Secondary and Tertiary are 4 and 2 points respectively and can be whatever the TO wants to make up to match the scenario. Often, both players can score these but sometimes not. These could be things like have more surviving army points, kill the opponent’s highest point model, be the first to control the objective marker furthest from your board side, control both objectives for a turn, etc.
The system has been used in many tournaments and in several different game systems and tends to do well. It handles book missions and custom scenarios equally well as long as the TO is thoughtful and thinks of Secondaries and Tertiaries that fit the scenario, don’t snowball easily, and are based on player strategy rather than randomness.
There are at leat two more U.K. ones, the Nothern Kings system and the Kings of Herts one (which we are working on with Mark Cunningham from the Shroud if the reaper touranaments to tweak).
Both have almost identical reasoning behind them, but vary a bit in the implementation.
I think the third one I was talking about was the Northern Kings. I’ll edit the first post with it.
I found Northern Kings’ is similar to BlackJack but it promotes for players to keep playing (taking objectives and killing enemies) even when the game is lost and at expenses of their own units. Besides having enough units to take objectives, it doesn’t matter if your units die (not sure how I feel about this). On the other hand, even loosing a player can achieve a good number of tournament points. How it worked for the final tables? I assume it should be less point dispersion, more ties.
Boss_Salvage, I like the BlackJack system too, but I don’t think it’s neccesarily better or kinder for non competitive players. It just focus more in scenario objectives. Maybe you found less aggressive list to play against, that could be less overwhelming. I’m thinking Northern Kings’ one (and I guess Kings of Herts’ one too, I didn’t saw it yet) is definitely better for non competitive players.
I’m planning to run a newbie’s tournament in march or april. I’ll probably try Northern Kings’ or Kings of Hearts’ systems.
Not sure there is a name for it but objective point scoring rather than a huge win/loss scoring is another option.
Lady of the Lake in Duluth Mn is one example that comes to mind for this less common scoring technique. In that tournament there is a list of scenarios many of which are uniquely written for that tournament. Each player picks a scenario which can only be picked once by you over the 5 games before deployment and both scenarios are played
You can get 1-3 points for your scenario, 1 to 3 for your opponents scenario, 1-3 for kill points, and 1 for controlling more terrain.
This results in a lot of games where the loser so to speak scores a lot of points especially if they keep an eye on the objectives. It’s a format that changes the style of play a bit without totally morphing the game.
If you decide to go with the Northern Kings scoring system let me know and I’ll send you over the scoring spreadsheet scoresheet etc.
Obviously I’m biased in favour of the Northern Kings system (I co-designed it ) but I do feel that while no system is perfect, the NK system is built from the ground up to encourage enjoyment for everyone.
Being a ‘positive only’ scoring system you’re always playing to earn yourself tournament points, you’re never playing to deny your opponent points.
I’ve played all the systems and they all have pros and cons. But I’ve really been enjoying the Northern Kings system lately. I realize that unscrupulous players could abuse the system but I Like to think the majority of our KOW community is above that. The system makes me feel like I still have something to accomplish in the game even when I’m losing the scenario.
As the systems continue to evolve I can’t wait to see what’s next.
) but I do feel that while no system is perfect, the NK system is built from the ground up to encourage enjoyment for everyone.