this is just a little idea that popped into my head reading the c3po thread.

what if you got half points for dealing half damage? Say for example a rookie pilot at 21 points ended the round with 2 hull points remaining, so the opponent gains 10 points for the half kill. This should fix the biggest complaint about fat falcons being the time it takes to kill them, by making them still with 25-30 point ships if you got 7 hits on them, helping your margin of victory greatly and reducing there's.

obviously this is just for timed events but I think part of the issues atm are due to games that naturally take 75-90 minutes having to be stopped after 60.

the formula is fairly easy, half of the ships total points, rounded down (I think that's fairer than rounding up) and doesn't overly complicate things like a ban list would.

An injured ship is a ship that can be repaired to fight again. If it's not dead, you don't get credit for it. Look at episode 5. If the Imps had only lowered the shields but failed to take the base, the Empire wouldn't break out the champagne. They failed to accomplish their objective.

In this case, the objective is to kill the enemy ships. If it's not dead, you've failed.

I like the way the game designers and play testers created the rules.

An injured ship is a ship that can be repaired to fight again. If it's not dead, you don't get credit for it. Look at episode 5. If the Imps had only lowered the shields but failed to take the base, the Empire wouldn't break out the champagne. They failed to accomplish their objective.

In this case, the objective is to kill the enemy ships. If it's not dead, you've failed.

An injured ship is a ship that can be repaired to fight again. If it's not dead, you don't get credit for it. Look at episode 5. If the Imps had only lowered the shields but failed to take the base, the Empire wouldn't break out the champagne. They failed to accomplish their objective.

In this case, the objective is to kill the enemy ships. If it's not dead, you've failed.

I understand that, however this is a timed tournament environment where points denial is a potential problem that alot of players deal with, especially on fat falcons and the like. Getting half points allows opponets to not be screwed over by the one hull point 60 point falcon against their tie fighter. Now in that situation you've still lost the game, but you margin of victory is 30 points better than it would have been, which imo is a better reflection of the game itself.

in a fluffier reasoning it still cost credits to repair the ship, and bacta isn't free, neither are capable recon specialists or gunners.

That's tourney rules that FFG's pretty flexible with. The problem with high cost ships is that for the same amount of damage you lose no points. A Falcon on 1 Hull gives its opponent no points at all. If a Falcon gets mauled by, say, a TIE fighter swarm and at the time limit has one hit point left, it wins if it took out a single TIE fighter. That, for me, would feel like winning on a technicality.

I could see FFG doing or at least considering this. Maybe suggest it to them in an email?

Are we also going to award point anytime an upgrade card is discard for any reason? If you say an X-Wing at 2 Hull should give you 10 points towards victory then I guess you should also get 4 points from it for firing a torpedo.

Saying half points for half damage also just ignores how hard some ships may be to kill. What would you do with that upcoming Devastator which can become a LOT harder to kill after it's suffered a bit of damage? You scrap the light stuff off the top but then you've got a lot more work to cut through the final "half" of the ship than you did the first half. Maybe you're only going to be looking when time is called but otherwise how do you deal with things that can regain health? How do upgrade cards affect things when they can boost a ships durability?

It may be an idea but it is so hard to use that it really isn't something to even consider. Let's also remember that most ships are just as deadly with 1 hull left as they are brand new.

Are we also going to award point anytime an upgrade card is discard for any reason? If you say an X-Wing at 2 Hull should give you 10 points towards victory then I guess you should also get 4 points from it for firing a torpedo.

Saying half points for half damage also just ignores how hard some ships may be to kill. What would you do with that upcoming Devastator which can become a LOT harder to kill after it's suffered a bit of damage? You scrap the light stuff off the top but then you've got a lot more work to cut through the final "half" of the ship than you did the first half. Maybe you're only going to be looking when time is called but otherwise how do you deal with things that can regain health? How do upgrade cards affect things when they can boost a ships durability?

It may be an idea but it is so hard to use that it really isn't something to even consider. Let's also remember that most ships are just as deadly with 1 hull left as they are brand new.

I'm not quite sure what you're argument is, discard upgrades go against your total, so a rookie pilot with proton torpedoes is worth 12 points, 25/2 = 12.5 round down. The decimator gets a free evade each turn, it's also 48 pts minimum that way and most people seem to like it at 55-60 like the falcon. Killing 8 hull can still be hard, and like the falcon can sit at one hull point and win a game just for that. My suggestion simply tones that down so that there will be a better reflection of how close it actually was, meaning that the margin of victory is closer making a one hull point voltron build not as dominate.

In short, this would mostly affect the bottom of the top 8/16, where I think the falcons I think are winning due to 5-1 or 4-2 with live falcons winning margin of victory

Points for half-killed ships is a terrible idea, and here is why:

You and I play a game with identical lists. Let's pretend we each have 4 of the same ship, 4 hull 0 shields each. Time is up and I have destroyed 2 of your ships and the other 2 ships are untouched. You however only did 2 damage to each of my ships. Who wins? By your method it would be a tie, but if we had more time I would have clearly won. The next combat I would be shooting 4 times and you would only shoot twice. I clearly have the edge. This is why only destroyed ships matter. A ship with 1 hull left is just as lethal as when it had 4. It would reward bad decision making to give points for damaged but not destroyed ships.

You should be focusing fire in a tournament, if your opponent has more than 1 ship with half it's hull/shields remaining you are probably not playing the game right.

I'm not saying I personally have a problem focusing fire, simply that right now with the wave 4 and increase in point per ship, voltron style builds are a thing, and getting them down to 1 hull and then being incapable of killing it. Perhaps if it was just for margin of victory then, rather than total points.

The problem is that there is no perfect scoring system. There will always be things that slip through the cracks, and feel "wrong". You just have to play the game and have fun with it.

And as far as the "fat" falcons are concerned, they are good, but not winning tourneys, so it hardly seems worth it to change the scoring system to deal with a build that is only slightly better than average.

The problem is that there is no perfect scoring system. There will always be things that slip through the cracks, and feel "wrong". You just have to play the game and have fun with it.

And as far as the "fat" falcons are concerned, they are good, but not winning tourneys, so it hardly seems worth it to change the scoring system to deal with a build that is only slightly better than average.

I understand that, however fat falcons are very prolific arm and I know there's alot of factors, but I feel like the change to margin of victory was the biggest one. And it's the thing that should be changed (somehow) if the falcon and phantom meta continues in this fashion.

My argument is that if you're going to award half of a ship's cost just because you've taken half of its "hit points" then you should be awarding FULL points for any upgrades that get expended. The Rookie fires off a torpedo so now it's down 4 points in strength from where it started.

I see where you seem to HATE the idea that you don't get any credit for doing stuff to ships until that ship is dead but that is how the game works. I take it you've never heard of people who will have an Interceptor or A-Wing "run away" and go full defensive when it is disadvantaged and its side has a lead? It's the same concept with the shoe on the other foot granted the Falcon is a ship that is basically impossible to completely avoid if it is coming after you.

Looking at this concept as a whole maybe you should just add up all the hull points a squadron starts with and compare that to how many damage cards it has when the game ends. Who ever has the lower damage cards/starting hull points ratio at the end of the game wins. This way the dual Falcon squadron that has 14 damage cards on 16 hull is considered a loss to the TIE Swarm that has 18 damage card on its 22 hull despite both sides each having two ships left. If each side started at 100 point the Swarm has "killed" 87.5% of the Rebel fleet although they all remain while the Rebels only "killed" 81.8% of the Imperial Swarm; clearly the Imperials "won" that fight despite losing three to six fighter while the Rebels may not have lost a single ship.

My argument is that if you're going to award half of a ship's cost just because you've taken half of its "hit points" then you should be awarding FULL points for any upgrades that get expended. The Rookie fires off a torpedo so now it's down 4 points in strength from where it started.

I see where you seem to HATE the idea that you don't get any credit for doing stuff to ships until that ship is dead but that is how the game works. I take it you've never heard of people who will have an Interceptor or A-Wing "run away" and go full defensive when it is disadvantaged and its side has a lead? It's the same concept with the shoe on the other foot granted the Falcon is a ship that is basically impossible to completely avoid if it is coming after you.

Looking at this concept as a whole maybe you should just add up all the hull points a squadron starts with and compare that to how many damage cards it has when the game ends. Who ever has the lower damage cards/starting hull points ratio at the end of the game wins. This way the dual Falcon squadron that has 14 damage cards on 16 hull is considered a loss to the TIE Swarm that has 18 damage card on its 22 hull despite both sides each having two ships left. If each side started at 100 point the Swarm has "killed" 87.5% of the Rebel fleet although they all remain while the Rebels only "killed" 81.8% of the Imperial Swarm; clearly the Imperials "won" that fight despite losing three to six fighter while the Rebels may not have lost a single ship.

I don't think that would work either, as something like the b wing is 3 hull, but 5 shield, and this could greatly favor something like the decimator with its 12 total.

I don't really hate it, personally, but there definitely seems to be a loud part of these forums at least that do. Its very similar atm to how a deathstar unit in 40k/fantasy works, and I don't know anyone in that system who enjoys those style games.

(death star meaning half your points are in an obnoxiously hard to kill unit, which when combined with killpoints being awarded on unit destruction meant that alot of lists simply couldn't get half of there points.)

I don't mind the falcons tbh, but I do think there could be some change to the margin of victory at the least to accommodate different style builds. (this goes for phantoms too, since they very easily have 40-50 points in that ship)

People are acting like this is some strange, alien method of awarding points, used nowhere else in the universe. Many tabletop miniatures games use the half-strength at end of game = half-points awarded method. There's little denying that the current tournament rules favor large, hard-to-kill ships. Double Firespray + Lambda, Triple Lambda, Falcon, Double Falcon builds are all pretty popular in tournaments specifically because they are likely to deny opponents points. Whereas the same points spent on small ships may be just as combat effective, but will likely yield more points to their opponents.

That said, I don't necessarily support a change to this method, but it's a bit naive to believe that the current method is infallible and deny that it affects tournament list composition.

While I love seeing new ideas this one just isn't my cup of tea. I can see people building lists and flying in ways that change the way the game should feel IMO. To me at the end of the day it's about kill marks not I almost got that guy marks.

What you propose is totally normal, and would be more fair than the current point system for sure.

An injured ship is a ship that can be repaired to fight again. If it's not dead, you don't get credit for it. Look at episode 5. If the Imps had only lowered the shields but failed to take the base, the Empire wouldn't break out the champagne. They failed to accomplish their objective.

In this case, the objective is to kill the enemy ships. If it's not dead, you've failed.

If we fluff was really an issue, we wouldn't have mirror matches, timed games, etc...

My argument is that if you're going to award half of a ship's cost just because you've taken half of its "hit points" then you should be awarding FULL points for any upgrades that get expended. The Rookie fires off a torpedo so now it's down 4 points in strength from where it started.

No. Why would you ? The ship costs are ship + upgrades. You get points from killing ships. That torpedo is part of the ship's cost, nothing more.

The problem with this idea is that it would slow down the post-match process and needlessly (IMO) complicate the scoring system. Even tallying up your MoV can be a pain if your brain is fried after an intense game and/or a long tournament; having to figure out how how many points you get for each and every damage card would be downright torturous.

The problem with this idea is that it would slow down the post-match process and needlessly (IMO) complicate the scoring system. Even tallying up your MoV can be a pain if your brain is fried after an intense game and/or a long tournament; having to figure out how how many points you get for each and every damage card would be downright torturous.

You can perfectly prepare the "build sheets" with the half cost prices anyways ie:

Luke Skywalker + R2D2 + Decoy = 34 (17)

I know you guys haven't ever played with stuff like this, but it is not hard at all, and takes basically the same time as we do know if you get used to it, while you are providing more accurate results.

Points for half-killed ships is a terrible idea, and here is why:

You and I play a game with identical lists. Let's pretend we each have 4 of the same ship, 4 hull 0 shields each. Time is up and I have destroyed 2 of your ships and the other 2 ships are untouched. You however only did 2 damage to each of my ships. Who wins? By your method it would be a tie, but if we had more time I would have clearly won. The next combat I would be shooting 4 times and you would only shoot twice. I clearly have the edge. This is why only destroyed ships matter. A ship with 1 hull left is just as lethal as when it had 4. It would reward bad decision making to give points for damaged but not destroyed ships.

You should be focusing fire in a tournament, if your opponent has more than 1 ship with half it's hull/shields remaining you are probably not playing the game right.

That happens zero times, basically because of what you said and is already known. Killing ships is more efficient way to gain points, you are way more likely to get ahead and kill even more ships, resulting in more damage done by you oppossed to the one you could take back.

a 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 damaged ships vs 2 killed ships is very unlikely and if it happens, you didn't deserve the win since you didn't know how to capitalize in your ship count advantadge.

I think the OP is on the right track at least. Playing multiple turns of run away is totally against the spirit of the game and in my opinion poor form.

Maybe half points is the exact right solution, but at first glance it seems better than the current option.

This whole argument relies on "playing defensively" or "point shielding" as a problem. Both are strategically viable and both have counter strategies that make list building more dynamic and important.

The board just isn't that big. Especially for a big ship to hide. 1vs1 endgame, sure, but at that point you've pretty much already lost the game if it's your 1 vs. their 40-60pt behemoth.

I don't like the Damage Reduction 2-3 (soon to be up to 4 or 5 I think) Falcons at all. I find them very boring to play against and pretty dull to fly (although now that you can fit 4 ships with them it feels a little more dynamic). I don't think half points is the way to go though. They are out 60% of their list if you take that ship down, then you can "play defensively" for the rest of the game.

This whole argument relies on "playing defensively" or "point shielding" as a problem. Both are strategically viable and both have counter strategies that make list building more dynamic and important.

And that would still be viable in a half point system. Let's put down an example.

Falcon which costs 60 points ends up against 2 Academy pilots. The falcon is down to 3 hull point.

Which one is more accurate, the one saying the score is 76-40, or the one saying it is 76-70 ?

This whole argument relies on "playing defensively" or "point shielding" as a problem. Both are strategically viable and both have counter strategies that make list building more dynamic and important.

And that would still be viable in a half point system. Let's put down an example.

Falcon which costs 60 points ends up against 2 Academy pilots. The falcon is down to 3 hull point.

Which one is more accurate, the one saying the score is 76-40, or the one saying it is 76-70 ?

76-40. Were the match untimed, the Falcon player would have it in the bag. The TIEs can't really force range 1 shots (since they move first) and are almost completely incapable of getting damage through without them (assuming the Falcon has 3P0 and the title, and if it's a 60 point ship chances are he does), so all the Falcon player has to do is wait for the other guy's green dice to fail him.

This whole argument relies on "playing defensively" or "point shielding" as a problem. Both are strategically viable and both have counter strategies that make list building more dynamic and important.

And that would still be viable in a half point system. Let's put down an example.

Falcon which costs 60 points ends up against 2 Academy pilots. The falcon is down to 3 hull point.

Which one is more accurate, the one saying the score is 76-40, or the one saying it is 76-70 ?

76-40. Were the match untimed, the Falcon player would have it in the bag. The TIEs can't really force range 1 shots (since they move first) and are almost completely incapable of getting damage through without them (assuming the Falcon has 3P0 and the title, and if it's a 60 point ship chances are he does), so all the Falcon player has to do is wait for the other guy's green dice to fail him.

Game results are to see how close the game were. If a falcon was down to 3 hull points by the end of the match, even if it had "that game in the bag", meant that the game was much closer than a full or nothing system would tell you. If the game continued as you are proposing :

One would be 100 - 40, and the another 100 - 70. Then again, which one is more fair and accurate ?

This is exacly as rounding decimals in maths. You can be lazy and never present data with it or you can try to be more accurate.