Well, I have a habit of leaving myself a blind-spot. Farseer Jenkins pointed it out for me in his comment on my Socrates post. I have been off the grid in the hills and sticks of southern Kentucky for a few days with little else to think about. I think my core scoring system is sound, if in need of a heavier point allocation to the mission objectives. In the example I used before I was using 1500 point armies. Let's stay at that level for the sake of consistency.
A revised score might look like this:
1500 points possible for killing your opponent (and yes I know there is the strategy of coming to a 1500 point tourney with a 1400 point army)
1000 for primary objective
700 for secondary objective
300 for tertiary objective
Now, bear in mind these point totals can be adjusted upwards to balance with larger armies. I think 130-150% of the army size in play is about right. This means kills are important but not all important.
An example of how this balances comes up ALL the time at the armoury...I call it pulling a draw from the jaws of defeat....take 3 of 5 objectives with only 3 models left on the table at the end of the game. In this case the "losing" player has essentially tabled his opponent and still "lost". His kill points would offset that issue, and balance out the scoring, creating a more balanced score. In other systems this might create more chances for tie scores, but here, there is enough variability in the scoring that SHOULDN'T be an issue. What do you think now?
We are looking at 3500 points possible a round. Now, NO ONE is going to go three games and table all his opponents with no casualties, so a perfect score is technically an impossibility. "So what?" you ask? I think this works well to eliminate the tie scores I have seen so many of over the years. What do you all think?