Tournament Scoring

[Ollie Grimwood]

Somthing on the last couple of Heelanhammer podcast got me thinking. They were discussing the way The Warlords event was scored. 

Your primary score was the number of major victories achieve if these were tied the decider was minor wins, then favourite game votes and finally total number of points killed. 

I rather liked this method as it bought well into the narative roots of AoS and made the most important thing completing your objective. I wasn't just as case of picking the fightiest units and smashing into each other but rather relied on careful thinking and attempting to out maneuvre and out fox your enemy.  Although there was still a fair amount of smashing each other apart it just wasn't necessarily the most important thing (although is viable option if it helped achieve ones objectives)

Did anyone else like this method? What other ways are tournaments scored, I'm aware of the sport league style with various points awarded form Wins/loses/draw? What are your preferences? 

[Bowlzee]

Personally I think the following system is good:

Major Win = 5
Minor Win = 3
Draw = 2
Minor Loss = 1
Major Loss = 0

This will encourage people not to give up and keep playing so the loss is not a major, and rewards those that push for the major win.

You could then give soft scores for best sports, fully painted etc.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I like the idea of the minor loss scores being motivation to keep people playing competitively and not give up.

[Terry Pike]

The problem with the scoring system is this:

I win all 6 of my games with minor victories.
You win 1 game with a major victory and take 5 losses.

You finish above me and I come near the bottom of a 100 player event with 6/6 wins. It should be sorted by Wins first, then Major as a tiebreaker.
 

[Ollie Grimwood]

But then someone with six minors would beat someone with 5 major and a loss and that wouldn't be right in my mind. One could play pretty negatively for Six minors (not always they might have had 6 thrillers) instead of  going for the scenario at all. I don't see that encouraging that is a good thing. I feel that completing the objective should be the most important thing and would (does) encourage more balanced army selection as quite a few unit's possess skills that assist in the scenarios even if they aren't the killiest. The way Bowlzee suggests may be a happy medium.  I'm sure there are other ways though. 

I would add that both the minor win and minor loss I had felt very much like draws so that might be colouring my view a bit.