mission book, p.9 wrote:
We suggest that each time you try a mission, play it twice, with the players swapping sides after the first game. [...] If one player wins both games, he wins an outright victory. If you 'split' the games [...] the player that caused the most casualties [...] is the winner.
Split games should happen roughly half of the time, so scoring them properly is pretty important. Am I to interpret the split scoring rules that each player adds his GS kills in one game to his SM kills in the other, and then compares the total to his opponent? This seems a little strange -- shouldn't a SM casualty count for a whole lot more than a GS casualty? Let's say the first game was a deciseve, quick, and easy win for player1 (SMs) with no SM casualties and 20 GS casualties. Let's say the second game was a toss-up where player2 (SMs) barely won with 4SM casualties but accumulated 25 GS kills. Shouldn't this count as a player1 win? Looks like the official rules would call this a player 2 win though (25 vs 24). Am I missing something? Why was this official rule adopted over all the other seemingly better alternatives (e.g. use number of rounds as the primary tie-breaker, or just count SM casualties, ignoring GSs ones, etc.)?