Partial Card Scoring Devalues Heroes

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by ollie

While I enjoy the debates, I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this (and might even go further and wonder whether there were any such spoilsports).
.

Oh there have been some disgraceful spoil sports. But I guess there always are.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

Oh there have been some disgraceful spoil sports. But I guess there always are.

I guess you just get a bad crowd down at that little GenCon thingy you do; not like us quality folks in the north east.


(Yes, joking, joking, especially as I've now remembered one person to whom you might be refering from before (largely) I discovered the game.)

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by ollie

Is this an argument for full card scoring or for improving (improving in the sense of producing an algorithm that more accurately denotes the value of the remaining army.) fractional scoring with more complications? It seems like the latter to me.

Yes.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

Yes.

Yes it is pro full card scoring in the sense that it is the simplest method of declaring who is ahead when time or round limits are reached. I can still put order markers on a card. It has in game value.

It is also in favor of "improving" partial card scoring, because just a simple points divided by life remaining is almost a random value. Something like two Ashigaru Yari left on the board are worth less per unit than 3+. Or Iskra at one life should be worth more than one Tarn because of the ability to remove wound markers. Confound it further with the fact that a dead Finn, Thorgrim, or Eldgrim still has value as long as they are still on an active card.

I am very much a proponent of the "less is more" philosophy. If full card scoring isn't an accurate indicator of who would win if the game continued indefinitely, then partial card scoring isn't either. I much prefer the simplicity of full card scoring.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

Yes.

Sweet. Any thoughts? Without getting unit-specific (i.e. valuing wounded Krug differently to a similarly wounded Kaemon Awa, say), here is my first thought:

• If you have more than one squad's worth of a common squad left, score fractionally as usual (ie in proportion to the number left).
• For a partial squad that costs C where you have x out of an original n members, score C*(x/n)^2.
• For a wounded hero that costs C where you have x lives left from an original n, score C*sqrt(x/n)

The idea being that the first few kills for a unique squad (or last common squad) are disproportionately good whereas the opposite is true for the first wound on a many-life hero.

Edit. Oops, I misinterpreted your original "yes". I have to go offline for a bit now though so can't fix things properly.

[Yodaking]

Originally Posted by jschild

Why not simply mix and match the two.

Heroes get full card scoring, because a hero with only one life left or with all his life can still deal as much damage as he could otherwise.

However, use partial card scoring for squads, because a squad 2/3rd's gone is pretty much useless.

This balances out the reality of the usefulness of the heroes even when injured vs. the helplessness of a squad with only one figure.

This is the best way to score IMO. Seems the most logical and fair. The points value should go down once something dies. Thus a squads' point value is reduced once one member is killed off while a hero must be killed in order for him to lose his point value. A squad is only as valuable as the sum of its parts after all.

I've also noticed that sometimes people hide the last squad member from the action. Sometimes it's just to preserve the ease of order placement via bonding action, but other times it just a cheap way to preserve points. You shouldn't be able to score higher by running and hiding.

[Yodaking]

Also wanted to mention that a hero can be healed back up to full stenght, but outside of the dividers and MWs, a squad can not be returned to full stenght once it starts losing members.

[nyys]

...and Zombies.

[Harlax]

PCS does not end the incentive to hide a figure, just reduces the value of the tactic.

A tournament format that rewards you based on how many points you have left in your army will aways provide something of an incentive for hiding.

In any case what we are really complaining about is stalling.

At NHSD my one loss was in a match where I could have set up three attacks on a squad where one kill would have completed a card and given me points. But I set up two attacks on a hero that I had a slim (very , very slim) chance to kill and one attack on the squad figure. I went for the win, and failed to kill either the squadie or the hero. I would do it again, even though those points could have cost me a spot in the standings.

Again, the best way to resolve all this is to create a format that allows more games to go to completion.

[Harlax]

Originally Posted by nyys

...and Zombies.

And many other Marro if you have a hive.

[Rÿchean]

Originally Posted by ollie

I guess you just get a bad crowd down at that little GenCon thingy you do; not like us quality folks in the north east.


(Yes, joking, joking, especially as I've now remembered one person to whom you might be refering from before (largely) I discovered the game.)

Yeah, GB was definitely not referring to GenCon. I am almost certain he was referring to events he hasn't run but has seen the fall out from, both old and new. I could be wrong.

Funny what five little gray words in a sig line can do. I am amused.

[skyknight]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

I see both methods viable and would gladly play by whatever rules the tournament director was using.

I always use FCS because I know many folks are more familiar with FCS as it is what is written in the rulebook.

As a playtester, I do not take full or partial scoring into account. I think of the strength and effectiveness of the unit as a whole.

What I tire of is this whole "tastes great/less filling" style debate. I think it is just old news at this point. The important part is that folks are still having events, and with the exception of a very few spoil sports, most folks enjoy themselves regardless of the system used.

I was coming to give my two cents...no need...Grunge summed it up nicely.