Battle Points...and why they SUCK

Link

http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/2011/06/battle-pointsand-other-disgust.html

Wow dude.... I can see the concern.... scoring all over the place. If this was B's event, maybe give him aheads up.

But definately "take the money and run"....

Who took first and second and what did you bring?

Sean (Makari) took first with Orks
Josh M took second with Samm Hain Chelddar
Mike W took third with Deathwing

(B was out of it by the end, exhausted, so I didn't really harangue him about it at the time...Sorry if it seems like I'm thrashing him, as it's more a major dink vs BPs...they tend to be handled inconsistently from event to event. GW needs to set up a truly standardized format again, if they want RTTs to regain an element of consistency/validity...nd if I implement things that don't work well at an event, I want the same type of feedback posted/spoken, so I can fix it! Honest and Blunt, it's what I expect )

Looking at it, I changed the blog entry so it did not come across as a TO/Venue thrashing...it was a format distaste, and that was not clear.
Thanks for the comment, HoD.

No problem EAP.

Congrats to everyone ML!

I'd have to agree with the rest of the disgruntled members.

The Missions were not clearly identified and the scoring was 'odd'. Third Missions total shouldn't have been double either of the other two Missions.
The pairings were believed suspect by a few guys but I don't think that this is an issue...Brady did the pairings, Makari had the program...I highly doubt Makari did anything shady to ensure his overall win.

Terrain was good.
Tables were balanced.

If the games were based on VP and KP tiebreakers, the rankings would be vastly different.

A solid error was identified. Josh tabled his opponent in round 2 netting him 12 pts not 8 pts as he was given...live and learn.

I hope the next Martial Law event doesn't follow the same scoring as this one.

I have not heard much about this one, but it does sound like the scoring was a mess. So much for the KISS basis on this one!!!

Either way great job on the finishings guys. A day of battle can't be all that bad!!!

The event was definitely a little strange. I was led to believe that swiss pairing was being used, however, on the last round Dickie, Makari, and I supposedly had max points. The three of us all played different opponets (not two of us playing each other as it should have been).

In addition, to echo what everyone else was saying, the point system was a mess. From the point system is was very unclear how much different objectives were worth. As Edge pointed out, on the seoncd round I achieved the primary object [worth 8] and my opponet was reduced to 600 points left in his army (which was listed as a secondary objective worth 4 points for destroying 1000 points of my opponets army). However, I was told I could only achieve a max 8 points for the round. Apparently, the intent was to have a maximum battle point per round equal to the primary objective...

The breakdown that I was credited was:
Round 1: Capture both commands+8 and Secondary objective Kill all HQ & Elite choices +2pts. Total: 10

Round 2: Most kill points +8, the +4 for killing 1000 points of my opponets list did not stack with the kill point +8, and I did NOT table my opponet so I did not get the +4 secondary. Total: 8

Round 3: Kill all HQ +2, Kill all Heavy choices +1, Secondary objective Center objective controlled by a troop choice at the end of the game +5. Total 8

I'm not complaining about it, if that was the intent with the scoring, it was just very unclear from the objective lists. I don't mind battle points if they are clearly and unambigiously stated since they obviously effect the decision you make during game play.

Sorry then Josh, I thought you tabled him, thanks for the correction.

It was still a good tourney. I had 3 great games. I still hate Orks though.

Edge wrote:

I still hate Orks though.

No problem Edge. I just wanted to chime in and give my account. I would say, however, that I did play much more conservatively then I otherwise would have on round 2 because I assumed (incorrectly) that I already had max points by round 4.

I'm going to chime in here on this event and Battle points overall.

Before that though I do have to tell you about the program I used for CAGBASH and for Brady.
The program takes into account "teams" or affiliations, Army Name, and location played (Day, Cin, Col.). It helps with pairing and keeping "teams" from playing each other or people who play one another alot. the first round is random, 2nd and 3rd are based on points scored and will "slide" players up or down a slot automatically if they are location or Team identically unless a point setting is set to not move them. ex if after round 2, 1st and 2nd were same team at 50 points and 3rd was 30 points but different it would not "slide" because the discrepancy is too great. The first round pairing was done properly with the program but Brady copied the wrong number down for the tables. It also tries to match up same armies from playing each other but only comes in to play at the 3 item for pairing. One issue taht I hadn't forseen was My Brother was listed as EGC and I was listed as ML and we got paired together. I have not played my brother for a long while and never against his Greyknights, and so there could not be any seconfd guessing of my intent to pad the tourney in my favor I let Brady know of what it did and he decided to let it be because it was the luck of the draw. I lost that game :-( 8-4 I think... But yet I still won by BP because I tabled my opponent by turn 4 in round 3 and took max points.

I did not like the scoring system for this tournament. The escalating BP are not conducive to a typical tournament and was not explained very clearly. However it was Bradys tournament and we had the missions and knew about them and did anyone ask about them? I didn't play a single mission before the tournament and just was going to wing it. And there was some confusion as to how to score and when I was entering scores for brady for round 1 and 2 I noticed some issues with how people were scoring their games and I asked Brady about it and he straightened it out that I knew of. So the lesson here is look at the missions and see how the tournament is going to be play and ask questions or give concerns you may have, This helps the TO and for sure future events.

I agree GW needs to get involved and design a tournament scoring system again that people can start using for tournaments.
My personal Formula is based on 100 possible Battle Points. This allows each round to have 33 points with 1 bonus point that can be earned on one of the missions. I am working on a system that will better incorporate Battle Points and Victory points along with points based on Strength of Schedule.

All in all though I did have fun and look forward to many more tournaments! I think we all need to be more diligent with paying attention to missions before hand to make sure it works and if it doesnt then let a TO know before the tournament preferably weeks ahead of time.

M;
I don't believe anyone here questions your integrity, I'm truly sorry you had that impression. Any concerns that seemed to be aimed at that probably alluded to perception....something of grreater concern when it isn't all a bunch that knows one another.

To address the 'pairing buddies' side of your program, it did miss myself and Charles(dkmrls) as e were paired first rd.

If you look at what was posted here, which wasn't much different from what we were handed at the event, there is no intimation of sliding scale, nor that points in some rounds were exclusive of others. There was little confusion, as it seemed clear that you 'got everything you scored' per what we were given.

My bigger gripe was how BPs affect pairings/final scores.

I DID have a great deal of fun playing two people I never had before...and would return if all things remained the same...especially as I wld be more aware of the scale/scoring.

The problem with that 1st round pairing was Brady and I was unsure that you were Exitus and ML. So that part was left off and you were put down as Dayton... Sorry I'm really bad with names. But I know now.
I wanted to clarify the program and goings on with what I was involved with because I was shocked to learn that I had won, though I asked for a recount to confirm.

Hopefully i we can create a standard tournament style that can be used in the area and hopefully adopted everywhere else.

For CAG events the 100BP is the standard for 40K, just FYI.

Makari wrote:

The problem with that 1st round pairing was Brady and I was unsure that you were Exitus and ML.

There have been a few new additions to the group as of late. This is why it will and should be important that all members TRY to attend ML Con this fall. This way we all can put names to faces and get to know each other better.