One source of ongoing controversy among WRG Ancients gamers; are the relative merits and problems associated with various tournament scoring systems. I would like to make a few comments on some of the aspects of the most commonly used points systems and propose a new system which, I hope, avoids some of the problems associated with those which we currently use.

Most tournament scoring systems award points based on two aspects of the game: the differential between the player's scores and the amount of damage they inflict on the enemy. Rewarding points based upon the damage a player inflicts seems to be motivated by the need to encourage players to get in there and mix it up. There are some players who like to take a great deal of time to set up their armies and carry out their plan. This is okay if there is not a pre-determined time limit, but it creates problems in a tournament setting. While a point system based largely on inflicting damage should succeed in motivating players to fight, there are a number of associated problems. One disadvantage is that the players have little incentive to preserve their own troops, so they may take a number of unreasonable risks, especially late in the game if the situation is hopeless. For example, in one tournament, I was so desperate to score some points that I sent a Pike unit into some woods after some LMI on the last turn!

This type of point system also favours armies which have considerable shock power, and eliminates many of the finesse armies from consideration. Another discomfiting feature of this system is that players usually need to kill vast amounts of the enemy's points to maximize their score. When the game is hopeless, the players should not be compelled to fight on. A tournament scoring system should provide players, wining or loosing, with an incentive to play on, but it should also allow them to halt the game without any cost to themselves or their opponent.

Tournament scoring based largely on the differential between players are also problematic. These games can often be slow to develop, with many of them ending prematurely at the time limit without a decisive result being achieved. A differential point scoring system with a tight time limit tends to favour armies with a proliferation of light troops, since there is often not enough time for there opponent to brush aside the LI to get at their other troops. This type of scoring system also gives players an incentive to ruthlessly pound the opponent's army into the ground for the sake of improving there own standing. Another problem with tournaments is the inequities created by how the player matchups are derived.

The idea is that players should not be able to win a tournament without having faced some of the tougher opposition. Most tournaments us a "Swiss" system for determining matchups after the first round (i.e. top two players face each other, etc.). Unfortunately, this does not always work out so well in the larger tournaments, where there may not be enough rounds to ensure that the top two players will face each other. Another disadvantage is that this system does not take into account the matchups in the first round, which are often determined randomly.

One way of treating this problem which has been employed recently is to add to the player's score a weighted sum of their opponent's scores. This also has created a few problems. For example, when an opponent you faced in an early round drops out it becomes necessary to introduce a few assumptions about how they would have scored if they had carried on. Weighting a players score according to their opponents score also yields some strange side effects if one player is winning a game decisively. If you are winning a game decisively, to the point where you are virtually guaranteed to score the maximum number of points, it is in your best interest to loose some of your own points to increase your opponent's score since this will also increase your own score!

So what is the solution?

It is dearly not going to be possible to derive a tournament scoring system which satisfies everyone. Players have differing views on what was important on the battlefield and varying preferences for how the game should be played. I would recommend that any tournament scoring system should contain the following properties:

1. Players receive more tournament points for a win than for a draw and more points for a draw than a loss, however defined.

2. There should be incentives for players to get in there and mix it up.

3. There should be incentives for players who are losing to continue playing to the end of the allotted time.

4. Players should not be encouraged to force their opponents to continue playing if they would rather not because the situation is hopeless.

5. Players should not be able to win the tournament without having played against other high- scoring players.

The system I am proposing is a nine point system. Losers get from 1 to 3 points, determined by the points of damage they have inflicted on their opponent's army. Players who draw receive either 4, 5 or 6 points, based purely on the differential between their point scores. Players who win receive from 7 to 9 points based on the points of damage they have inflicted on their opponent's army. The specifics are as follows, with the appropriate numbers for a 1600 point total tournament given in brackets.:

1 point: if the player's score is less than their opponents by 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is less that 5 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 80 points)

2 points: if the player's score is less than their opponents by 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is greater than 5 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 80 points) but is less that 15 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 240 points)

3 points: if the player's score is less than their opponents by 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is greater than 15 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 240 points)

4 points: if the player's score is less than their opponents by less than 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and by more than 5 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 80 points)

5 points: if the player's score is within 5 per cent (i.e. 80 points) of their opponents score

6 points: if the player's score is more than their opponents by less than 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and by more than 5 per cent of the designated point total (i.e. 80 points)

7 points: if the player's score is more than their opponents by at least 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is less than 25 per cent (i.e. 400 points) of the point total designated for the tournament

8 points: if the player's score is more than their opponents by at least 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is at least 25 per cent (i.e. 400 points) and less than 50 per cent (i.e. 800 points) of the point total designated for the tournament

9 points: if the player's score is more than their opponents by at least 10 per cent of the point total designated for the tournament (i.e. 160 points) and the damage they have inflicted is more than 50 per cent (i.e. 800 points) of the point total designated for the tournament.

This point system appears to fulfil most of the objectives outlined above. Wins are always better than draws, which in turn are always better than losses. There is an incentive to get in there and mix it up quickly and to play to the end of the allotted time because a loss or win with a lot of bloodshed is better than a loss or win with a little bloodshed. You can let your opponent off the hook once you have killed half of their army and it is clear that you will win. However, they may wish to play on in hopes of inflicting a little more damage on your army. You will not want to throw away points because the victory could become a draw fairly easily in most games. In close games, players must be very careful, since points are determined purely on the differential between the players.

One property this system does not fulfil is the need for players to defeat other high-scoring armies in order to win the tournament. In spite of the disadvantages, I prefer to resolve this by using a Swiss system for matchups after the first round.

I suppose that there are really two objective in writing this article. The first is to discuss some of the properties of tournament scoring systems and propose a new system. The second objective is to start an exchange of ideas on this subject. It seems to me that after every tournament I participate in there is widespread discontent over the scoring system. Even though we probably particpate in tournaments primarily to have some fun, there is that competitive element in all of us that wants to win. The tournament scoring system is a critical element in ensuring that there is an element of fairness in how the standings are determined. Our club has used two different systems over the past two years, and I have seen at least three different systems used in NASAMW tournaments over that same period. Perhaps by sharing ideas on this subject we could devise a better and more widely accepted system.