First, an apology: I haven’t been particularly diligent in updating this blog lately. I recently started a new job (ironically, the first of my career that is actually data analytics heavy), and it’s been taking up essentially all my free time. With that out of the way, on to tournament scoring systems.
Tournament scoring systems in Kings of War are more than just a way to determine a winner—they shape how players approach games, build their armies, and make tactical decisions. A tournament’s scoring method can nudge players toward playing for scenario, prioritizing attrition, or balancing the two.
Various podcasts have recently been diving into tournament scoring systems, sparking discussions on how different methods impact competitive play. If you’re a tournament organizer deciding on a scoring system, or just a player curious about how they work, I wanted to pull together a quick guide breaks down the most common systems, their philosophies, and their pros and cons.
Why Tournament Scoring Matters
KoW’s core scenarios determine winners and losers, but tournament scoring systems go further by rewarding performance within each game. The choice of system can influence:
- Army building: Some scoring methods favor balanced armies, while others reward aggressive or defensive lists.
- In-game tactics: If attrition matters heavily, preserving units might be a priority. If scenario points dominate, fast scoring units become more valuable.
- Tournament dynamics: Some systems ensure undefeated players finish on top, while others allow players with a loss to climb back into contention.
Breakdown of Major Scoring Systems
Each of the following systems is widely used in Kings of War tournaments worldwide. Here’s how they work and what they encourage.
Blackjack Scoring System
Mechanics:
- A 21-point zero-sum system (winner’s and loser’s scores always sum to 21).
- Base points: Winner gets 14, loser gets 7, draw is 10 each.
- Scenario difference: Up to ±4 points based on objectives controlled.
- Attrition difference: Up to ±3 points based on army points destroyed.
- Maximum result is 21-0 (a dominant victory).
Philosophy:
Blackjack rewards winning decisively, not just winning. The differential format ensures that the margin of victory matters, meaning small wins won’t score as well as large victories.
Pros:
✔ Granular results help differentiate player performance.
✔ Encourages balanced play (scenario + attrition both matter).
✔ Zero-sum scoring keeps rankings predictable.
Cons:
✖ Can encourage defensive, risk-averse play when ahead.
✖ Bookkeeping can be complex.
✖ Some army styles struggle, particularly high-damage lists that also take heavy losses.
Northern Kings Scoring System
Mechanics:
- A positive-only system (players gain points rather than subtracting from each other).
- Base points: Winner 15, loser 5, draw 10 each.
- Scenario points: Earn 1 per scenario objective controlled (max 5).
- Attrition points: Earn 1 per ~20% of opponent’s army destroyed (max 5).
- Maximum result is 25 points (15 + 5 + 5).
Philosophy:
Northern Kings was designed to encourage engagement and prevent players from playing to deny points. Because no points are subtracted, losing players always have something to play for.
Pros:
✔ Encourages aggressive, high-action games.
✔ Scenario play is well-rewarded.
✔ Losing players remain motivated since they still gain points.
Cons:
✖ De-emphasizes pure win/loss records (a player with fewer wins can place higher).
✖ Can favor high-damage, aggressive playstyles over defensive or surgical approaches.
Bullshroud Scoring System
Mechanics:
- No fixed points for winning; instead, players score:
- Scenario objectives (up to 7 points).
- Attrition points (up to 3 points for kills).
- Max score is 10 per player (both could score high even in a close game).
Philosophy:
Bullshroud was designed to put maximum emphasis on scenario performance while minimizing the impact of a win/loss binary.
Pros:
✔ Scenario-focused; players must engage with objectives.
✔ Very tight standings, making for an unpredictable finish.
Cons:
✖ Winning the game doesn’t necessarily matter much.
✖ Can lead to extreme meta-shifts toward scenario-heavy armies.
✖ Some players dislike that their tournament position may not align with their W/L record.
Bartshroud Scoring System
Mechanics:
- Hybrid of Bullshroud and Northern Kings.
- Base points: Winner 10, Draw 5, Loser 1.
- Scenario points: Up to 7 for objectives controlled.
- Attrition points: Up to 4 for enemy units destroyed.
- Maximum result is 21 points (10 + 7 + 4).
Philosophy:
Bartshroud was created to fix Bullshroud’s weaknesses while retaining its scenario emphasis. Winning does matter, but players are also rewarded for their in-game achievements.
Pros:
✔ More balanced than Bullshroud; winning is still meaningful.
✔ Encourages scenario play but also rewards destruction.
✔ Players always earn points, reducing frustration.
Cons:
✖ Can feel overly complex compared to simpler systems.
✖ Bonus objectives (if used) need to be carefully balanced.
20–0 Attrition System (Clash of Kings Classic)
Mechanics:
- Base points: Winner 15, Draw 10, Loser 5.
- Attrition points: Up to ±5 based on kill point difference.
- Scenario points don’t affect the score beyond deciding W/L.
- Max score: 20–0 if a player wins and out-kills their opponent by a large margin.
Philosophy:
This older system rewards attrition, treating kill points as the main determinant of how big a win was.
Pros:
✔ Very easy to calculate.
✔ Ensures winners rank above losers.
Cons:
✖ Doesn’t reward scenario performance beyond securing victory.
✖ Encourages destruction-focused play over tactical scenario control.
Comparing the Scoring Systems
| System | Base Win Points | Scenario Impact | Attrition Impact | Max Score | Style |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blackjack | 14 / 10 / 7 | ±4 based on scenario difference | ±3 based on kill difference | 21 | Zero-sum, differential |
| Northern Kings | 15 / 10 / 5 | +1 per scenario point (max 5) | +1 per 20% of enemy killed (max 5) | 25 | Positive, high-scoring |
| Bullshroud | None (win gives no bonus) | Up to 7 per scenario | Up to 3 per kills | 10 | Scenario-focused, win-neutral |
| Bartshroud | 10 / 5 / 1 | Up to 7 per scenario | Up to 4 per kills | 21 | Hybrid of NK and Bullshroud |
| 20-0 System | 15 / 10 / 5 | Not separately rewarded | ±5 based on attrition | 20 | Attrition-focused, old-school |
Which System Should You Use?
- For a highly competitive event that rewards dominant victories: Blackjack or 20-0.
- For a balanced system rewarding scenario play and aggression: Northern Kings.
- For a scenario-first event where every point matters: Bullshroud.
- For a hybrid approach that ensures wins still count: Bartshroud.
- For a simple, straightforward experience: 20-0 or a W/L-focused system.
The choice of scoring system can greatly affect how a tournament feels for the participants and even the final results timeline. Granular scoring systems like Blackjack and NK tend to produce a wide distribution of scores, which means tie-breakers are less often needed to determine places – that’s a positive in terms of clarity (you don’t usually get two players with exactly the same score at the top). However, they also can produce scenarios where one player is far ahead on points. For example, in Blackjack if someone scores back-to-back 21-0 wins in early rounds, they’ll be clearly leading; others might have a hard time catching them unless the leader is defeated. This can reduce final-round drama if not kept in check. Northern Kings, by allowing large combined scores, often sees a tighter pack at the top, which can make the final round very exciting with multiple people in contention (as noted, draws and losses don’t knock you out as much). Players have recounted that with NK, going into the last game you might have 6+ people who could win the event, whereas with a traditional system it might only be 2 people with all wins vying for first. This can be more exciting for the community and keeps people invested (no more “well, table 1 are both 5-0 and everyone else is 4-1, so winner of table1 takes it no matter what”). In fact, in NK it’s possible the tournament winner isn’t undefeated, which means the final standings reveal can be surprising – some like that suspense, others might find it strange.
In terms of player morale and enjoyment, systems where you always get some points (NK, Bart, etc.) are often cited as more encouraging. Nobody goes home with 0 points. A player who’s having a rough tournament can still celebrate the points they did get in each game, and perhaps set personal goals like “score at least 10 each game” etc. In Blackjack, a couple of bad losses early (say you get 0 or a couple points twice) can make a player feel pretty out of it and demoralized. Bullshroud attempted to address that by compressing scores so no one felt out, but as discussed it had other trade-offs. NK has been praised for that “feel-good factor” of adding to your score rather than seeing zeros or negatives
Ultimately, the best scoring system is the one that aligns with your event’s goals. If you want to encourage scenario play and engagement, Northern Kings or Bartshroud are excellent. If you want to ensure winning is paramount, Blackjack or 20-0 work well.
What’s your experience with different tournament scoring systems? Let me know in the comments!
Планируйте выходные в Сочи — прогулка на арендованной яхте
яхты в сочи https://arenda-yahty-sochi323.ru .