Once the game gets to that point there is 3 options. The first is to give your opponent the game when you see you cant win, quite boring. 2nd is rushing forward in an attempt to salvage something, another is to run away in an attempt to stop your opponent from reaching a full win. If the alternative is having those pieces ran away to avoid giving your opponent a 3 point win or giving up then yes, it does increase engagement.

If I am up against a hard counter in swiss I am much more likely to play aggressively with 1 point losses because of their value. Unlike when they weren't there or if we reduced their value, then I would be play cat and mouse attempting to barely edge my opponent out on points. This ensures I maintain possibly a sliver of a chance, but ensures my opponent will never reach a full win. Which has more engagement?

If we wanted to address this specific issue with a scalpel we could make it so when a character is half hitpoints or less then it counts as killed if the game goes to time.

But rock squads do have an inherent disadvantage in this game. If you have a 100 point character you are almost assuredly out activated. If they can stand up to the onslaught then they deserve to win. "Game the system" is a bad way of saying they have learned how to compete playing a rock squad in a game that caters to shooters and high activation squads. I do understand that this is also doable by shooter and high act squads, but then they have to come within range. At minimum they have to move closer to you. A preferred result imo.

How can you abuse it if everyone is playing for sheer points? Total defeated points.
I’m not talking “tiered” points or “step” points...just plain old defeated character value points.
(like the game was designed to do. Yes, I understand a system was designed for competitive play, but it’s overkill IMO)

That would be a noob move to not score as many points as you could each game.
Keep in mind it’s all about defeated points...so if you don’t score a lot of points (aka defeating more characters) and the person in the game next table over scores more (defeats more characters), then you are losing already. What would that gain you to hit and run?
That’s actually one of the problems when you use tiered victory points.
It’s eliminated when playing for sheer defeated points.

If an opponent is running or stalling, then get the judge involved.
Otherwise slug it out for points!

It's not a tie. It's a tiebreaker win. "The player with the most most victory points wins the match."

Indeed, opinions do tend to be opinions. What isn't an opinion is that 1 point losses would become irrelevant except in extremely rare circumstances.

If these suggestions were all implemented it would have poor results.

1. Gambit only being 5 points and taking a 10 point piece to score.
2. Gambit only counts after an hour of playing in order to figure who gets the tie points.
3. 4 points for a win and 1 point for every 100 points scored for both the winner and loser.

Not an opinion, a fact. We only have to go back 5 years to see how horrible engagement was without proper incentives. I guess that may be an opinion, especially for those that disagreed with the changes to gambit and scoring originally. Not to mention those that benefitted before the change.

You may think Gambit is currently being "Abused". However, do you really think it is abused now more than it's lack of importance was? Before its points increased from 5 to 10 nobody cared for Gambit. It was a convenient after thought. I don't see why we would go back to games of snipe the mouse where 2 point wins were the norm and sub 100 scoring games were fine.

I'm responding to this in the 2021 BC rulings thread as it it more broad and general than just the tournament scoring system.

I also think we should consider something to the effect of - you get 1pt in a loss if you reach 100 AND the game finishes.

Should a player who plays slow and loses 100-130 really be rewarded the exact same as a player who loses 189-200 in a games that finishes in 45 minutes?

There are negatives to a pure defeated points system. You encourage complete annihilation, extreme points denial, unfairly give extra points for someone that wins say by 100 DP vs 200 DP. The last point, both are dominant wins, what separates them is typically the extreme win is playing a hard counter. The match up could be considered a lucky draw, so should we really be rewarding extra points to a lucky pairing?

Lastly the community as a whole has been playing with a Defeated Points, Gambit and a points won system. I do not think shying away from that model entirely would be a good move for a community as small as ours.

Those reasons among others is why I think most competitive miniatures use either a margin of victory scale or points earned scale. I greatly appreciate your input, but I don't think a pure defeated points system is the way to go.

This is so well put. Thank you.



Fully agree. That is how the game was always meant to be played.

I will note that I have been told using words like "annihilation" trigger a fear response in some people and they don't respond well to it. I have tried to adopt less severe terminology. Defeat all your opponent's characters.

And yes, both players should at all times be attempting to win by defeating all their opponents characters. The system we have now allows for many things outside of that to not only do well, but in some cases do better without having that that goal in any game.

I feel like 5-3-1 is simple, and balances that goal nicely without taking it to an extreme.

Forgive for not quoting, but it’s a lot to edit on a phone.

I think you misunderstand my position, which is easy to do as this is a complicated subject over multiple threads.
I do believe in total annihilation of an opponent’s squad. By which, Tim’s point above is defeating every last one of your opponents characters. However, I agree that it’s very unnecessary to track down non-combatants and do not advocate that as a must. I always thought it was a floor rule that if one player had only guys left that dealt no damage then the game was over and a full point victory was awarded. Perhaps that was just a floor rule we used in our league. (I’m all for that, as it’s a good sport move anyway)

I’m not sure why you said what you did about only way full points awarded and all, but that is opposite of where I stand. Sorry if I misled you. I believe that whatever you defeat you get. (Not you keep what you kill...movie quote) If you win 101 to 99, so be it. Win 220 to 10, same. Points are points either way and whoever scores the most wins in a game. It’s the winner who is awarded extra points, but only so someone who lost does not somehow gain an advantage over someone who won...in tournament standings. Somehow we are all stuck on a winner should always have more points than those that lost. Just makes sense right?

If this game takes away the “luck of the draw”, then it loses its diversity. I personally would not play it if every squad was built the same and played the same. The funnest part of this game is building a squad that can fight against and hold its own against the most other types of squads possible. If you build a squad that is only good against a certain type of other squad, you deserve to lose. No offense, but that’s a horrible plan. And If the system is designed to only allow certain types of squads and dictates the way the game is played, then it’s too narrow, rigid, and broken. The fun is taken away. Even in a tournament setting there needs to be variety and diversity.

And if I can make a squad that gets me 200+ pts while keeping my opponent to 0 pts, then I’ve done my job well!

Perhaps I think and play differently than some, but I always play to win and score as many points as possible. Even if I know I’m not going to win the tournament, I’m not going to throw a game or go easy on someone so they can score more points. Not in a tournament. (While teaching or playing a fun game with kids, that’s different!). There’s still player rankings to think about. Are they still tracking those? Maybe I’m just super competitive, but that’s me. People are people and they will do things you cannot expect at times. No system will cover everything people can come up with.