After reading through the tournament guideline's yesterday I was overall pretty impressed with some of the unexpected rules that will be taking effect (mainly building your own set-up deck which makes bidding for Blue Player much more attractive) but I can't help but be disappointed in having strength of schedule as the main tie-breaker, especially with so few rounds and for the majority of tournaments only having a cut to the top 2. So here is my idea for alternate scoring for tournaments:

1) Decisive Victory = 3pts (Defeat all of your opponent's units; do not score any other victory condition)

2) Objective Victory = 2pts (Have the most VP's, tie goes to winner of the Battle Victory)

3) Battle Victory = 1pt (Defeat the most points worth of unit's)

Each game would be worth 3pts, with the split being either 3-0, or 2-1. Overall this would balance out scoring, and reward good playing and give you agency as to your ranking in the tournament; instead of being subject to how well your opponents do. Tiebreakers would then go to most points destroyed, and only then if there's still a tie should strength of schedule be used. Thoughts?

The problem I have with this is rewarding for kill all opponents figures. If this game is about objectives and scoring objectives you could win with out a kill (theoretically anyways, though highly unlikely). I would hate to see a focus put on that because it shift the game focus also.

yeah, this isn't a death match game, take that over to Xwing

I would recommend the Flames of War system:

6-1 if you won and lost nothing
5-2 if you won and lost 1 unit
4-3 if you won and lost 2+ units

Draw if you run out of time and you score:
3 if you lost nothing
2 if you lost 1 unit
1 if you lost 2+ units

We also had a rule that if one player ran out of time twice or more in an event he was a slow player and his matches that timed out were reversed to a win for his opponents.