Greg Hey, everyone – it’s Greg here to welcome you to the first -/Chat – a new series in which a panel of writers hold an informal discussion around a hot topic. With the 2022 U.S.Kings of War Masters on the horizon, many participants, spectators, and internet trolls are buzzing about the change from the Blackjack scoring system to the Northern Kings scoring system (as decided by the regional reps on the Masters’ Council). Here to help me break down the differences between these two systems and the impact the change will have on the event is Alex, Keith, and Brinton. Gentlemen, let’s start with the basics. What is a scoring system, and how does it affect a game of Kings of War?
Keith The basic role of a scoring system is to measure not just who wins, loses, or ties, but to measure the extent of a Win, Loss, or Draw. The main rule book lays out the victory conditions for each scenario and how to score those wins, losses, and ties. Since Second Edition, multiple different scoring systems have been created by players to measure victories different from the book. And each scoring system lays on top of the main rules and affects how players approach scenarios and build their army lists. So while scoring systems don’t directly change the rules, they definitely affect how the game is played.
Brinton It is mainly relevant once you’re in an event trying to determine a winner over more than a single game. So at the end of 5-6 games in a weekend, you know who really won the dang thing.
Keith Right – we should make clear – this is for tournaments rather than one-off play.
Brinton It gauges not just who won, but it should gauge how convincing a win it was. Did you eke out a narrow victory or give your enemy a right paddling?
Alex It’s especially important since every tournament uses Swiss-style pairing. There is a very important need to differentiate the results of each game against each other and pair the next round accordingly. In theory, the scoring system determines the sliding scale of who won and by how much.
Brinton Yeah for sure. Super critical for Swiss-style pairing which we basically all use (except for some weird experiments with other styles).
Greg Exactly – because in a one-off game of Pillage, for example, whoever claims the most objectives at the end of the game is the winner. End of discussion. But in a tournament, if everyone plays Pillage in the first round, you don’t want all winners and losers to receive the same score. You want a gradation. So, the scoring system generally rewards players in Pillage for controlling more of the objective markers or earning more attrition points.
Alex For those that remember the early days of just straight Win/Loss scoring, there tends to be a lot of randomness between round to round and overall added noise to the tournament results. A good scoring system eliminates that noise by trying to give an accurate distribution of points to the players that earned it.
Greg Now that we know why a scoring system is important, let’s get into some specific examples. Two of the most common scoring systems used in tournaments are Blackjack and Northern Kings. For the past several years, the U.S. Masters has run Blackjack. This year, we’ve switched it up to Northern Kings. What are the key elements of these two scoring systems, and how are they different?
Brinton One of the main departures from the Win / Loss / Draw system or the 20-Nil Rulebook system was that Blackjack offered more granular scoring around scenario objectives.
Keith The main conceptual difference between Blackjack and Northern Kings is whether to use the difference between players’ objective scoring and attrition to provide a plus or minus modifier or whether to use an entirely additive scale. For example, in Blackjack scoring, the winner receives 14 points and the loser 7. For a tie, both players receive 10. The scores are then modified by the difference in objective scoring and attrition, with the total available points being 21. For Northern Kings, the Winner receives 15 points, the Loser 5, and for a Draw, both players receive 10. Then the players add to their scores based on how much attrition they scored, regardless of casualties, and add to their scores based on objective play (though measured differently from Blackjack).
Brinton This means the amount you won a scenario by in objectives mattered. You couldn’t just score one more control point than an opponent and win as big as the next table who outscored the opponent 6-1 in Control.
Keith Right, Brinton – that’s an important difference from the out-of-the-book system.
Brinton Yes, to be clear, both Blackjack and Northern Kings offer that sort of granular scoring, but Blackjack (and some others we’re not discussing here) had this as its defining idea when it was released to the community first. So it was this big step away from the out-of-the-book system where suddenly how you won a scenario mattered. Northern Kings also takes this as well, so they’re similar in that regard, both granularly scoring objectives.
Greg So both systems modify your result based on your performance in the scenario and your attrition score (the points value of the enemy units you Routed). But in Blackjack, you can receive positive and negative modifiers, whereas in Northern Kings you can only receive positive modifiers.
Alex You guys are spot on, the major difference I see between Blackjack and Northern Kings is that in Blackjack you are always playing against what your opponent is doing, there are 21 points up for grabs no matter what each game. But, with Northern Kings it’s no longer a zero-sum game, both players can score points by maximizing their own objectives. Obviously, the objective is still to win in both systems but the end results can be quite dramatically different.
Keith Right – as Alex mentions, the major… innovation… of Northern Kings was to only have positive additions to your score. No one can score a 0.
Brinton I think there is a feel-good factor for some folks when adding to your score and not reducing it (or scoring 0) in Northern Kings, but the part that jumps out at me is the zero-sum game part. That is what I feel really influences strategy differences between the two.
Greg In Blackjack you and your opponent’s scores will add up to 20 (in the event of a draw) or 21. In Northern Kings, what are the theoretical minimum and maximum ranges of the result?
Keith 5 for a loss and 25 for a huge win. You can lose and get no modifiers.
Greg Right, so that would be one end of the spectrum. What would the highest combined score (for you and your opponent) be?
Keith It could be 40 in some situations – because how you modify for objectives isn’t necessarily the same as victory conditions. I believe a 20 – 20 tie is possible and I suppose a 25-15 win is possible, too (but don’t quote me).
Alex It depends on the scenario but those numbers are possible in theory. In my experience, more common results are a 23-13 Win, 18-18 Draw, etc.
Greg Brinton, you started to mention a strategic difference. Can you elaborate on that?
Brinton So, in Blackjack, what you lose from your army can modify your score down.
Keith Which forces you to care about casualties.
Brinton Exactly – so, there is a calculation you need to do as a general. Will risking (or straight up throwing away) this resource pay for itself in either getting me more objective points or trade favorably getting me more attrition points? For example, I have this super expensive Mounted Soul Reaver unit, they can charge in and kill something but might be exposed to counterattack. In Blackjack you need to do the math, determine what it is really gaining you, what the risk is, etc… because losing those ~300 pts could result in a loss of tournament points. Under Northern Kings, which is positive scoring only, as long as that unit gets “something” then it doesn’t matter if you lose them (as long as you still win the game). Your score isn’t modified down for your losses, so you can have a more potentially aggressive use of your resources while worrying less about the repercussions.
Greg Makes sense! Are there any specific scenarios that feel the most different when using Blackjack versus Northern Kings?
Keith I think the biggest difference is in some of the unit strength scenarios. For instance, in Dominate, you win the scenario by having more unit strength in the scoring zone – we all know that. And in Blackjack, you can get up to 4 extra points for outscoring your opponent’s unit strength. In Northern Kings, you win in the same fashion, but then you get additional scenario points for each “scoring unit” regardless of total unit strength in the Dominate zone.
Greg So four unit strength 1 units would be more beneficial than a single unit strength 4 unit?
Keith Indeed.
Alex You make a great point, Greg. There is a balance between trying to win the scenario and trying to score the most points. In Northern Kings, those are often not the same objective.
Keith This leads to different strategic decisions and even list-building decisions based on your scoring system.
Brinton I think, fundamentally, besides having enough units to score the scenarios, Northern Kings just doesn’t care how much of your army you have left at the end of the game. This is a big difference. You want to win in Blackjack by losing as little as possible while killing as much as possible. Northern Kings doesn’t care what you lose to get your kills.
Keith Attrition scoring changes how you marshal and protect your resources, and objective scoring in the handful of scenarios that are different (Dominate, Invade, Raze) changes things up, too.
Alex I think you guys are touching the crux of army design difference you will see when building a list for each particular system.
Keith Probably makes sense to jump into how the systems affect list building, then!
Brinton Blackjack rewards very careful trades of your resources, or not trading them at all. Armies that can remove opponents with shooting, avoid having to commit until they’re certain of a reward, and can avoid straight-up piece trading with their more expensive pieces benefit. Now, to be honest, those characteristics generally just make a good wargames army, so it’s not entirely Blackjack rewarding those things.
Keith Right – so in a plus/minus system, there are archetypes that work on doing damage without taking hits back – alpha-strike and shooting being key examples. They tend to score well when you compare differences – and there are high defense/heal armies that just deny their opponent’s attrition, they tend to work well in that system, too.
Brinton Or “alpha-shooting” like some of your damn Elf builds!
Keith Don’t hate the player 😀
Brinton There were always armies kicking around that were scary but they lost so much of their own army achieving their goals that it was hard to actually win an event in Blackjack…They’d almost table their opponents, but would almost be tabled themselves.
Alex The first thing that jumps out at me when designing a list to play under Northern Kings is that the list needs to have a lot of aggressive options. The more damage you do, the more points you are going to score. There needs to be a heavy skew of hammers over anvils.
Greg So, in Blackjack I might keep Heal (5) on my Winged Unicorn but in Northern Kings, I’m going to swap it for Lightning Bolt (5)? Or can there still be a role for that defensive style list?
Keith To answer Alex – definitely – damage output matters more in Northern Kings. And Greg – yes and no. If you need Heal to win, you’d better take Heal – but maybe you find the 35 points to make the Unicorn dual purpose.
Alex I wouldn’t say that the micro-decisions are too impacted. As Keith mentions, you still need to win the game, and the best way to do it should still be the best choice. HOWEVER, the archetype of defensive builds you saw with armies like Dwarves or Undead will not be nearly as effective because they will score a much smaller win on average.
Keith And we should clarify that in either system, the player that wins 6 games probably still wins. But these points at the margins do shake up the rankings. I think there were maybe 10 points between 2nd and 15th last year at Masters. So who gets the extra/bonus points definitely matters.
Greg Yeah, the difference between a 15-point Win and a 25-point Win is significant. If you’re aiming for a top spot you really need to maximize your scenario points and attrition points.
Keith By the same token – a 15-point Draw isn’t as devastating when people with wins are getting 17s.
Alex Draws are simply much more rewarding in Northern Kings if you do score highly. It’s quite possible and common to score 18-point Draws. In Blackjack, that same Draw could be worth only 10 or 11 points.
Keith Right – so a Draw drops you 6-8 points off pace rather than 3-4.
Alex Yes, exactly. I can use myself as an example. In the Mountaineer GT I just played last weekend, my first round was a 17-point Draw. A few big Wins later and I found myself with a very similar point total as the front runners. My Draw felt like a small Win, and the main reason for that is because I played a very aggressive list that was able to kill large amounts of my opponent’s army.
Greg Interesting. So from a list-design perspective, you want to be very efficient at removing enemy units, regardless of whether your own units will survive the battle (aside from the ones necessary for winning the scenario). I imagine that means glass-hammer-type units, which you might be reluctant to over-invest on in Blackjack, become more attractive in Northern Kings?
Alex I don’t think glass hammer styles are going to be “best” but I do think that aggression beats defense. You wouldn’t always take Air Elementals over Fire but you do take both of those over Earth.
Keith I think as Alex said, hammers generally are super important – and glass or not, you can care less about how well they survive. You do still have to take into account the modifiers in the three scenarios we mentioned above, though. A 9 drop, 6 scoring unit army may obliterate your enemy, and win you the scenario, but if you win with only 1-2 scoring units like Brinton hinted, you will not maximize your scenario points.
Brinton So are there examples of army types or archetypes you’d take to a Blackjack event but maybe not Northern Kings and vice versa? (Sorry, Greg, I know you ask the questions here 😊 )
Keith I am not sure I would change armies/races, but I certainly would change 200-300 points on the margins. It’s an intra-army choice rather than an inter-army choice.
Alex That’s a great question, Brinton. I look at a lot of Dwarf builds that have a mix of shooting and combat – they play scenarios super well and do great in Blackjack but really struggle to win big in Northern Kings.
Keith cough – Rossi – cough
Greg So, if I’m understanding y’all correctly, the scoring system doesn’t necessarily determine which army you take to the event, but it will determine how you design your list. There might be a solid core that you always field because it’s your vehicle for winning the scenarios, and then a certain percentage that changes depending on the scoring system to help you maximize your score?
Keith Basically – personally, I think the scenario point differences change my thinking at least as much as the attrition difference.
Greg You mean having a high volume of units with at least one point of unit strength?
Keith That’s definitely the flip side – those 1 or 2 unit strength units that are cheap become super-charged in Northern Kings, which benefits certain armies and builds more than others.
Alex That’s a very good point, Keith. Normally in a unit strength scenario, having only a 4 single unit strength units alive at the end of the game could be a disaster. In Northern Kings, that could earn 4 (out of 5) scenario points.
Keith Good thing there aren’t any armies that can reliably unlock efficient unit strength 1 Heroes and Monsters…
Greg At the end of the day, what does this mean for the U.S. Masters? How significant do you think the switch to Northern Kings will be? And what type of army is going to take it down? Obviously, lists haven’t even been submitted yet, so this is a purely theoretical exercise…
Keith Any lists than can do serious damage and unlock efficient 1 or 2 unit strength units have significant advantages.
Brinton That was my feeling…basically what Keith said.
Greg To Keith’s point, are we going to see a preponderance of Nightstalkers and Ogres?
Keith Because you need more reason to take those two lists right now…
Brinton The ability to both win objectives but also hunt down and kill points from your opponent at the same time is crucial. You can’t have an extremely defensive/avoidance army that wins objectives while preserving its points. You have to be proactive at killing. Points denial is much less of a thing in Northern Kings, so anything relying on that is less useful.
Alex I would certainly expect all those things mentioned. The name of the game is going to be aggression and killing as much as possible.
Greg So, as a parting thought, which scoring system do you prefer, and why?
Brinton I haven’t played many events using Northern Kings scoring, so for me, I prefer it as something new to try. I’m interested to see how it affects list and battlefield choices and whether it represents a playstyle I like more than Blackjack. By the end of Masters, I might be a convert or absolute fuming at that scoring system. We’ll see…
Keith Boo – non-committal response, Brinton! Personally (and sure not to shock our British co-authors), I strongly prefer Blackjack. Having scenario points based on an element outside of the scenario victory condition is disqualifying in my opinion. I also feel like the spreads between ties and wins are diminished in Northern Kings (but don’t have the math to back that up). Finally, and this may not matter to anyone else but me, I still like to consider tournaments as my army on campaign, so blithely sacrificing units seems wrong. Oh – and I guess the danger of collusion turns me off, too. Northern Kings doesn’t incentivize players to maximize their points at the expense of their opponent. So, it can lead to horse-trading – not saying that it does, but why even allow for that if you don’t have to?
Alex Having just finished an event using Northern Kings, my experience is still limited, but I much prefer Blackjack. As a long-time Dwarf player, I’ll admit that I have some bias. But, I like the idea of defensive archetypes being competitive. I much prefer a system that rewards players who can trade their pieces optimally and rewards them for the margin of the win. I am much more interested in watching teams trying to score goals after fighting through each other’s defense instead of seeing which team can score the most goals on an empty net.
Keith Your soccer analogy is sure to dig at our UK compatriots.
Alex Pretty much, haha. I was trying to find the best sports analogy. It’s not perfect but it’s close enough.
Greg Calling it soccer, too, really twisting the knife…
Keith Doing my best to make Hildrew spit out his coffee in the morning when he reads this. Or tea, I guess? Well, that’s two votes for Blackjack and a typical “I have to do an empirical analysis before I have an opinion” answer from Brinton – Greg?
Greg Having played only a single game using Northern Kings, I feel most akin to Brinton. I’m trying to keep an open mind, but I do enjoy those points-denial/defensive builds and don’t think they should be excluded from top placings. Well, guys, thanks again for joining me for the inaugural -/Chat article. For those of you reading, please let us know what you think! We’re open to suggestions for future topics, as well. Take care!
