Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Greg,

I have always been in the dark about Scott's scoring system, something that is
done on a computer at Historicon each year. It is seemingly dark and cryptic,
but anyone I have asked about it have said best they can tell, totally fair.
Now that the secret recipe is out of the bag, I say lets try it and see what
turns up.

Chris

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Scott ... :-)

Ok ... we have been using your point system, just without any adjustment. I
will check out the site you suggested. I read what you posted here about the
opponent adjustment five times and still don't get it. Hey, it's early.

As far a what is a "win" ... we will have to just disagree. For me, a one
point win over a player of my experience level is worth 50 big wins over a
less experienced player. While respectful if your opinion, it reminds me of
the Nebraska football program who continually tries to convince us that
beating Pacific 72-0 is impressive, when in fact a one point win over
Florida state is worth a whole season of wins over Pacific.

Greg

[scott holder]

I have always been in the dark about Scott's scoring system, something that is
done on a computer at Historicon each year. It is seemingly dark and cryptic,
but anyone I have asked about it have said best they can tell, totally fair.
Now that the secret recipe is out of the bag, I say lets try it and see what
turns up.

>A couple of points here. First, unless a scoring system *drives* players to
be aggressive, as a rule, they won't be. Therefore, in order to get rid of
the type of playing that was dominating US ancients "I win by 30 points
therefore I *win*", I adopted a system that duplicated what I saw at the 1990
"World" Championships in England. No dicking around over there, nosirreee
bob. Suddenly games became "fun" again, even hyper competitive ones.

>Second, yes, everyone will admit that whacking off someone new isn't as
"hard" as grinding out some close fought game with last year's NICT winner.
THAT'S where the adjusted system comes into play. If you grind out a 3-3 tie
against a guy who ends up with a great record (wins his other two game 5-x for
example), YOU benefit from that. In any other scoring system, you wouldn't
benefit from that I don't care what type of system you concoct. In fact, if
you coulda ground out 150 points more than him, you might get a 4-3 score and
that's even better because you get an additional 10% of his score. And given
unit costs, 150 point difference isn't such an onerous task between two evenly
matched players. I've got gobs of tournament experience that bears that out.

>Third, everyone at the local level should play with a point system they like.
The NASAMW "standard" shouldn't be applied at all levels if the local group
wants a point system that dictates a different playing style. Remember, the
"standard" has to be all things to all people, therefore it pleases no one.

>Fourth, gimme a week or so and I'll have the Warrior version up on the nasamw
web site complete with instructions.

Scott
Scoring Ho

[Greg Regets]

I think everyone should use the NASAMW's approved scoring system and pairing
system. Everyone doing things their own way just killed gaming in this area
back in the days of the old Lone Star Society. Every tournament you went to
had "house rules", etc ...

Scott, do you have this on computer?

Just me two cents ... Greg

[scott holder]

I think everyone should use the NASAMW's approved scoring system and pairing
system. Everyone doing things their own way just killed gaming in this area
back in the days of the old Lone Star Society. Every tournament you went to
had "house rules", etc ...

>Please, it's not "approved", it's just a system that was well playtested, met
the players needs, and has stood up very well over the last 10 years. The
pairing system is straightforward in that "winners vs winners" simply winnows
the field, or, if winners tie each other, enable others to potentially
overtake them later on.

>In a perfect world, everyone would play in 4 rounds.

Scott, do you have this on computer?

>Again, I do and it will be available for download as soon as I have time to
make it available.

Scott
Scoring Ho

[scott holder]

In warrior the best that could be said of this is that
you stop your opponent from scoring but still get no points yourself.
I would be intersted to hear what your much greater experince of the
warrior system suggests about this

>The Warrior system is a parralel outgrowth of the 600/600 system I encountered
at Derby in 1990. Under that system, you received up to 600 pts of your
opponents troops (the usual all for units routed, destroyed, 1/2 pts for shaken
or off-table). You then recieved up to 600 points for the difference between
what you "killed" and what you lost. So, the idea was to kill 600 points and
lose none. Final score for the round: 1200.

>Prior to 1990 here in the USofA, our scoring system was ludicrous. You could
be considered a "big" winner if you eliminated 151 of your opponents points and
lost nothing. At the time, that could consist of two 8 element LI units. At
the time, knowing the specific "playing culture" here in the USofA, the Derby
600/600 system just wouldn't fly. Therefore, I started working on a system that
would *duplicate exactly* the placement results of the Derby 600/600 system, not
go to far toward offending players sensibilities AND encourage aggressive games
(which is exactly what the Derby 600/600 does at one extreme).

>We playtested a number of systems and held several tournaments in Northern VA
where we actually scored them 5 different ways simultaeneously. After much
work, the current system as outlined in Warrior proved the best. It encouraged
aggressive games and *exactly in all instances* duplicated the placement results
of the Derby 600/600 system.

>What I've done in addition to that is use a weighted scoring system where 50%
of your score is the 0-5 pts you get as outlined in Warrior. The other 50% of
your score is your opponents total 0-5 score, you getting 10-50% depending on
how you scored against him. For example, you beat an opponent 4-2, you will end
up getting 40% of his final score, which then comprises of 50% of your final
score. I'm not explaining this well. Go to www.nasamw.org and follow the link
for scoring systems and you can also download the spreadsheet and play with it.

>Using this system, players get rewarded for playing good opponents. I'll admit
that I don't often use it nowadays because final scores using 0-5 have been
pretty clear cut. But when you're running a 32 player tourney, the weighted
system is a godsend. It also assumes Swiss pairings, ie winners vs winners,
round after round.

scott