PDA

View Full Version : TOMAHAWC Sliderul: an alternent event scoring system for 40K



Komosunder
23-08-2012, 06:30
TOMAHAWC Sliderul: an alternent event scoring system for 40K


TOMAHAWC uses a unique system for scoring games and seating rounds in there tournaments. We call it the TOMAHAWC sliderul. It scores the players game based off a series of win conditions. Each game has five conditions that progressivel get easier to achieve. Every player will receive a score between 1 and 10 for each game played. The score is determined by the condition the game ended on and if the player won or lost.






Condition:________Win points:___________Loss points:


1_______________1___________________10


2_______________2___________________9


3_______________3___________________8


4_______________4___________________7


5_______________5___________________6


Fore example, if a player wins on condition 3 they would be awarded a score of 3. There opponent would receive a score of 8. A condition 5 win, nearly a draw, the winner would score a 5 and there opponent would only receive a 6.


In some cases a bonus condition may exist to modify your score further to better your standings. Generally this bonus condition is achievable by both the winning and loosing players. If a senareo does contain a bonus condition it will be worth -1 to the player score.


Many TOMAHAWC Scenarios contain the mission special rule “Wipeout”. “Wipeout” takes effect if a player ends a game by destroying every opposing model on the table at the end of a game turn. A player that has achieved a “Wipeout” automatically wins the game and is awarded a condition 3 win unless they have met the requirements for a condition 1 or 2 win.


The point score is used to determine round seeding and overall winner. The lower your point score the better your standing. At the end of the tournament the players with the lowest scores are named the winners.


It is common to have more then one player with an equal Condition score. When this is the case, determine placing by the use of FOC score.


A players FOC score is equal to the points spent on the opposing players destroyed units. If units are in reserve or falling back count them as destroyed for the purpose of FOC scores. Units ending the game at half or less of their total starting wounds reward half their points (rounding up) to the opposing players FOC score.


You will often find FOC scores use to set a condition five win, but these should still be figured at the end of all games.


if you are interested in seeing some example scenarios to use with this system feel free to ask and ill put some up.

DEADMARSH
23-08-2012, 13:56
I like the concept of having some differentiation in the scoring in regard to priority of objectives. I think this has always kind of been a problem with "the tournament" in theory- namely, you're going to have a whole lot of folks with the same score and a few that score above the average and a few below. That's just inherent to a points-for-wins system like the Premier League or the NHL or whatever. The difference there is the length of those "tournaments" go on much longer than the 5 games that is bog standard for most 40k tournaments. I think this is where organizers started to try and throw in meta scores like painting, army comp, and sportsmanship; to try and invoke more deviation in the scoring than what the games themselves were deciding.

I also like the notion of the FOC being a scoring trigger, but it seems like it may be doubling up with the Wipeout condidition and this FOC thing. Or maybe I don't fully grasp it. Me personally, I've never really understood why scoring systems (not just yours- pretty much all of them) reward tabling or wiping out your opponent with bonus points. It seems redundant- if your opponent has no units, he won't complete objectives.

It also seems as though most players won't attempt any other win condition as tabling your opponent inevitably will score the most points. I mean, if that's what you're going for as a tournament organizer/ rules writer, then ok, fine. It just seems like a lot of folks complain a bit about objectives and other win conditions being devalued in favor of just flat-out destroying your opponent's forces. I think if organizers would put a little more thought into scoring models and objectives like you have, the tournament meta would be better for it. People tend to build their list to table their opponent- obviously that's why you see so many similar builds at the tournament level. If people would start composing lists around the notion of meeting objective requirements rather than just pushing most all of their army forward and rolling as many dice as they can fit in their hands, the codex creep/ min-maxing/ parking lots might not be so viable anymore; tournaments might stop being straight up points to fire power ratio contests with a little dice rolling. I also think this is why GW doesn't seem to recognize the "problem" with codexes like Grey Knights or on the other end of the spectrum, 'Nids- there's a fairly significant difference in playing to wipe the other guy off the board and playing to the mission/ scenario. Maybe that's just me.

TL;DR- I'd be interested in seeing some of your sample scenarios. It sounds intriguing!

Von Wibble
23-08-2012, 14:43
What would help there would be if it were possible to win the game before the end without wiping the opponent out with objectives eg a "domination" type setup where you gain VPs for controlling objectives at the end of each turn (representing download and transmission to a mothership of valuable data) - reach a target score and you win.

I would be very interested to see specifics, it looks like a good idea to me.

Ragnar69
23-08-2012, 15:07
The bigger tournamenst here have the following rules:

each player places 1 HQ objective. It's worth 3 VP and can grant Skyfire to a friendly unit within 6"
there are 3 more objectives, worth 2 VP each
getting more killpoints also gives you 3 VP
the 3 secondary objectives from the rulebook give 1 VP each
tabling the opponent gives 1 VP

So you can get a total of 19 VPs of which 12 are from take and hold objectives. The loser's VPs are subtracted from the winner's to determine the tournament points, if you have at least 11 VPs more than your opponent, you get the highest possible tournament points. So you need to hold at least 2 objectives even when tabling the opponent for a max win:
+ 11VP --> (20:00)
+ 9 VP --> (17:03)
+ 7 VP --> (15:05)
+ 4 VP --> (14:06)
+ 2 VP --> (12:08)
+ 1 VP --> (11:09)
+ 0 VP --> (10:10)

DEADMARSH
23-08-2012, 16:00
What would help there would be if it were possible to win the game before the end without wiping the opponent out with objectives eg a "domination" type setup where you gain VPs for controlling objectives at the end of each turn (representing download and transmission to a mothership of valuable data) - reach a target score and you win.

I would be very interested to see specifics, it looks like a good idea to me.

That's a cool idea!

AT-43 used to use a system kinda like you describe above. You got what were essentially VPs for holding objectives throughout the game and not just at the end. I found it had kind of a Dawn of War (the PC game) effect on things- you were much more likely to get off your ass and make some risky moves rather than just sit around and play it safe. If I remember right, I think most objectives gave a higher amount of points (like around 25%) for the first turn you held them, then a slightly lower amount for the remaining subsequent turns you held onto them.

Of course, AT had an added mechanism of awarding Reserve Points along with those objective VPs which was how you brought in the rest of your force to the table (which, in a nutshell, was usually you set up 75% of your force on table, then the other 25% had to be brought on through accumulated Reserve Points) which added a whole other reason to get off your ass and take some objectives early instead of focusing solely on blowing up everything on the other side of the table.

Those were two of the things I really used to like about that game.

Komosunder
23-08-2012, 20:02
sorry, Warseer doesn't seem to allow PDFs to be posted. i'll link out to somewhere i can post the scenarios, now this is in no way me trying to pull hits to my website (i've been dinged on that before). until i can figure out a way to do this, ill just put up the single link. these are the scenarios we are using in our upcoming tournament this weekend. they are rewrights of 3 of the book scenarios. these are intended to be simple because this will be the first 6th ed tournament for a lot of people. i'll see if there is a way for me to post PDF here so i can show you some of favorites. \

http://tomahawc.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/6th-ed-redux-senario/

DEADMARSH
25-08-2012, 18:43
OOOOOHHHH! Now I get the sliderul thing!

Very interesting idea. I like it. Would love to play a few games with it and see how it works in reality. Really interesting take on victory conditions. You at least get an A for effort in my book.

Komosunder
29-08-2012, 04:34
i'll see what i can do about getting some more scenarios up. we have a ton of them worked up. i just dont want to spam the thread with them.