I attended my first tournament last week, and got some conflicting information on a scoring issue.

I was playing a tight match against a list with lots of ion/flechettes. We were nearing the time limit, and since my opponent was plinking away at me with ion cannons he hadn't been able to finish off any ships, and it was a nailbiter all the way to the end.

Over the course of the last few turns we were both tallying up points to figure out who was in the lead and discussing what each of us needed to do in the time remaining.

As I did some math out loud regarding the one Y-Wing I had killed (Gold + ion turret + 1x flechette = 25 pts) an acquaintance of ours who happened to be spectating the game mentioned that a ship which had fired its ordnance no longer surrendered the points spent on that ordnance.

I'd never considered that before, but I took his claim at face value and adjusted my strategy accordingly. My actual opponent missed that portion of the conversation, and later on, after the spectator had wandered off, I mentioned it to the dude I was playing, and he said, no, the destroyed Y-Wing's torpedo would be included in its points tally even though it had fired it before it died.

He won the game regardless, so it didn't matter that night, but I'd like to know the correct interpretation of the rules for future reference. Both these guys are veterans who have been playing longer than me, so I can't take one player's word over the others'.

Looking at the tournament rules, the scoring section reads, "Each player calculates his score by adding together the total squad points value of his opponent's destroyed ships, including Upgrade cards equipped to those ships."

Based on that, I can see how the first player reached his conclusion; ie. turned over ordnance cards are no longer equipped.

What's the right way to score in these situations?

Spectator was wrong and your opponent was correct.

When the ordnance was used, the card was flipped over. It is still attached, just not usable again.

In a tournament if you're not sure about something, call the TO. Don't just listen to whoever yells something out.

A ship's full points cost is the cost of the ship and all of its upgrades. A ship is either 'alive' with its full points value, or 'dead' with its full points value. It doesn't matter if ordnance has been fired or not, the cost values are still part of the ship.

It may not be the rule. But I quite like it as an idea. Would make carrying ordnance in tournaments much more interesting. Just have a rule that discarded cards do not count towards a destroyed ship's points total.

It may not be the rule. But I quite like it as an idea. Would make carrying ordnance in tournaments much more interesting. Just have a rule that discarded cards do not count towards a destroyed ship's points total.

No, because then there would be a points denial strategy where people Intentionally take the maximum amount of ordinance so that they can simply keep themselves from losing by points differentials. The current method is the only fair way to handle this.

I think of it this way: At the end of a match, a ship is worth the same amount of points it was worth at the start of the match.

It may not be the rule. But I quite like it as an idea. Would make carrying ordnance in tournaments much more interesting. Just have a rule that discarded cards do not count towards a destroyed ship's points total.

No, because then there would be a points denial strategy where people Intentionally take the maximum amount of ordinance so that they can simply keep themselves from losing by points differentials. The current method is the only fair way to handle this.

I do rather disagree. The current method is not the only fair way to decide matches. If it was why has the points differential recently been changed? There are lots of options for deciding how to resolve non-annihilation matches.

I'm thinking it might be an interesting way to buff ordnance. It would, most certainly, be a buff. The question is then how to make it one that isn't too great. Perhaps have spent ordnance reduced in points value by 2 or 3?

I think of it this way: At the end of a match, a ship is worth the same amount of points it was worth at the start of the match.

Sure - I get that- I'm just musing on the subject. I do find it a little odd that your opponent gets a benefit from destroying ordnance which has been expended. Now unspent ordnance is a different thing entirely. Though this is all just a point for discussion.

I agree, with the thought of not counting expended ordinance, take Proton Torpedoes for an example, the card says to discard it to perform the attack, to me that says it's out of the game and shouldn't count against you, but alas that is not what FFG says.

I do rather disagree. The current method is not the only fair way to decide matches. If it was why has the points differential recently been changed? There are lots of options for deciding how to resolve non-annihilation matches.

I'm thinking it might be an interesting way to buff ordnance. It would, most certainly, be a buff. The question is then how to make it one that isn't too great. Perhaps have spent ordnance reduced in points value by 2 or 3?

The current system grants a full 100-point credit for a full win, regardless of how many points were actually in the opponent's squad. This is important because it doesn't screw you over because of your opponent's initiative bid.

This idea suffers from a similar problem. A player should not be penalized because of their opponent's list choices. And while I understand that isn't the goal, it's exactly what it does. We both go fully undefeated, but you happen to face a Bomber list in the first round that has 20+ points of ordnance, while nobody I face uses any. Your MoV is 20 points less than mine, and you come in second because one of your opponents was carrying missiles.

I agree that ordnance still needs some help. Skewing the tournament system to hose anyone who faces them is not the right answer.

Buhallin: You could only use the reduced points cost method when determining the victor. Though that could definitely lead to odd MoV calculations - where a loser has a MoV of less than 100!

I will go off and think about this a bit more and see if I can;t come up with something a bit more thought through. Just threw the idea out there without a lot of analysis.

(Note that it wouldn't affect final placings unless there was no knock-out phase.)

Buhallin: You could only use the reduced points cost method when determining the victor. Though that could definitely lead to odd MoV calculations - where a loser has a MoV of less than 100!

I will go off and think about this a bit more and see if I can;t come up with something a bit more thought through. Just threw the idea out there without a lot of analysis.

(Note that it wouldn't affect final placings unless there was no knock-out phase.)

I like that even less... You could easily have enough missiles to count as a full ship or more worth of kills. Again, screwing with scoring for a specific type of card is a bad idea.

It would affect final placings even with an elimination phase, since it would affect who got into the elimination rounds in the first place. That's why there was such dislike of Strength of Schedule even at big events like GenCon Nationals and Worlds.

If ordnance doesn't count as part of the destroyed ship that carried it into battle then it should all be counted on its own. That is to say that if you fire a Proton Torpedo you just GAVE your opponent 4 points so I really hope that torp manages to take out more points than that.

I also guess that if applied to ordnance it should apply to all things that get discarded. If you knock of a Stealth Device that should be an instant 3 points to you even if the ship survives the fight. The same with something like Adrenaline Rush.

There would be three ways to deal with "temporary" upgrades:

1. Count as points "destroyed" when used or the ship they are on is destroyed.

2. If used before destruction don't count as points.

3. Add to the final value of the ship they are one but have no other cost associated with them.

Points 1 and 2 are basically polar opposites of each other. One will say "you shoot the torpedo and that's 4 points for the opponent" while the other says "you shoot the torpedo that's 4 points the opponent can NEVER get even if it happens to vaporize a Phantom along the way."