To bad its too late to introduce objectives like Armada.

Never say never!

I would love to see new ways to play in tournaments. The dog-fight is great, it really is, but I could see missions and alterante scoring as being the next step tp making this game even better at the competitive levle.

Why do we keep talking about partial points?!?

I think I covered that in the podcast?

Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed reply.

First, let me say I hope you are taking this discussion in the manor that it is intended. Tone is hard to gauge in text. Here is the premise for my friendly argument with such ideas:

Before we start to explore what IS NOT in the game for ways to improve it, we should first look at what IS. I would readily agree that the 60 minute round creates a drastically different game than the 75 minute round. That being said, you should know what to prepare for when heading to your local tournament. If we the players feel that 60 minutes has limited us to a type of list, then we should demand of our tournament holders the return of the 75 minute round. This solves the issue with a new set of rules. It also keeps the core mechanic of the game the same, whether you're playing a friendly, epic, or tournament style match.

One must also be honest about the 60 minute match too though. It allows for a different kind of game. In my local meta, few players are taking advantage of what this shorter time frame affords you. Yes, Fat Han is still a popular build. As is high HP centered builds. What also should be popular are cheap ships with hard hitting ordnance. A-wings are a pain in the butt to hit if they don't want to be and can survive a single joust. This is all they need to unload their missile. I'm shocked I haven't seen more loaded Y-wings. I've had great success using their tankiness to get into position, ion the opponent, and then unload torpedoes with tokens in my favor.

I know you play a lot of X-wing, as do I. You are well aware of the pros and the cons of the things I have mentioned. You are also well aware of the weaknesses of the list you brought to the 60 minute tournament. Do I wish I could fly Defenders with better success than I do? Sure, and I still try. Am I willing to suggest that new rules are created to satisfy this want? No. I conclude with how I started my reply: Let us look to what is already in the game to change it for the best before we look outside of the rules. I firmly believe the 75 minute format is the better choice for tournaments for many of the reasons you want partial points. The difference is, no one has to learn a new system. The game remains the same game we fell in love with and has been tried and tested.

Why do we keep talking about partial points?!? Did you kill the ship or not? It is an easy mechanic. If you want to kill this game fast, put some kind of complicated partial points math into it.

The first thing a player should learn (if they want to win games) is how to concentrate fire and how to keep your opponent from focusing fire on one of your ships. (This is why Biggs is such a great X-wing). The reason why Xizor is a game changing pilot is because he can deflect damage to a range one ship of his choosing. Keeping your opponent from landing consistent damage on the same ship is how you win this game.

Because the Falcon surviving on one hull gets a disproportionate MoV advantage against fewer ships.

But that player PAYED for those HP points! The disadvantage to that player is how many points they loose when it is lost. It is the opposite tactic as a swarm. And that is what will become popular if partial points come into play... the swarm. Why on earth would anyone load up an E-wing, YT, or other expensive ship when all your opponent has to do is 50% damage to it to score? It will be a game filled with tie swarms all over again.

In shorter matches you MUST prioritize your targets. Most large ships are rolling one green die and are easy to predict where they are going (or to block). In 75 minute rounds one could take out the escorts first, but not in a shorter time frame. You WILL loose ships. but the name of the game is win by 12 points now. If you take out a 50 point ship, you need only to keep your losses to 38 points to win.

There are no timed engagements in space. There's no agreement between Rebels and Imperials to meet at a particular asteroid field "but be home by dinner". If one patrol comes across a group of the other, it's guns blazing until the other side is completely wiped out or has fled the battlefield*.

A time limit artificially inserts into such a battle Imperials saying "Well, we've almost blown up the Falcon, its engines are hardly glowing, smoke is pouring our of half a dozen holes in its hull, we've knocked off yet another sensor dish, and I can see one of her gunners hanging dead in the turret... but we've been battling her for 60 minutes** and they're about to close this sector*** so pack it in, boys, looks like she wins this time."

Games being limited by time is an unfortunate consequence of competitive play, not an accurate representation of the outcome of a real battle, which is what the game of X-Wing is supposed to represent.

*Incidentally, this is also why I dislike a barrel-roll or de-cloak that puts you millimeters off the table forcing you to flee the fight. Why can an ace pilot misjudge an asteroid and "change his mind" mid-roll and somehow snap to the opposite direction, but he can't avoid accidentally leaving some mythical "zone of engagement"???

**Probably more like 60 seconds in an actual space battle.

***The store.

Another other option is to give a bonus for tabling someone. This would help force players not to run, because they may miss the finals due to points difference. Because they decided to win by a little rather then get max points.

"in definitely got into this squad based game about fighters to watch lone freighters run away from each other" Said no x wing player ever.

I think Sean's other point was a good one re: timed matches - if you do partial points, people are just going to game the system the other way and fly lots of frustratingly hard to hit ships that spread the points way out. Or, let's use the match MJ described. Once you had your opponent's Talas dead, MJ, why would you not just be the Han running away, since you would have a huge partial point lead that point?

Timed matches will always result in people trying to figure out how to best take advantage of the time limit, and it will also restrict the sort of squads that are effective. I remember the first WarMachine tournament I went to where I used my standard Retribution army with lots of infantry. I got crushed because I kept running out of time trying to move all those units. I learned quickly that I needed to adjust my squad and playstyle. As long as there is a time limit on competitive X-wing matches (which I think you have to have to keep tournaments from being a miserable experience), I don't believe it matters how you score it - people will build to game points in relation to the time limit.

There are no timed engagements in space. There's no agreement between Rebels and Imperials to meet at a particular asteroid field "but be home by dinner". If one patrol comes across a group of the other, it's guns blazing until the other side is completely wiped out or has fled the battlefield*.

A time limit artificially inserts into such a battle Imperials saying "Well, we've almost blown up the Falcon, its engines are hardly glowing, smoke is pouring our of half a dozen holes in its hull, we've knocked off yet another sensor dish, and I can see one of her gunners hanging dead in the turret... but we've been battling her for 60 minutes** and they're about to close this sector*** so pack it in, boys, looks like she wins this time."

Games being limited by time is an unfortunate consequence of competitive play, not an accurate representation of the outcome of a real battle, which is what the game of X-Wing is supposed to represent.

*Incidentally, this is also why I dislike a barrel-roll or de-cloak that puts you millimeters off the table forcing you to flee the fight. Why can an ace pilot misjudge an asteroid and "change his mind" mid-roll and somehow snap to the opposite direction, but he can't avoid accidentally leaving some mythical "zone of engagement"???

**Probably more like 60 seconds in an actual space battle.

***The store.

I don't really have a problem with it, thematically... you can explain it away with something like "Good job, Han - the senator got away while you distracted the Imperial scouting party," or "Artoo managed to fix the hyperdrive - Chewie, get us out of here!" Several of the mission have time limits, and you can always create a narrative to explain why...

I think if we were to adjust the culture of X-Wing tournaments to a partial point system, the timing would work itself out. Especially if we had the correct software to do the math for us.

There are no timed engagements in space. There's no agreement between Rebels and Imperials to meet at a particular asteroid field "but be home by dinner". If one patrol comes across a group of the other, it's guns blazing until the other side is completely wiped out or has fled the battlefield*.

A time limit artificially inserts into such a battle Imperials saying "Well, we've almost blown up the Falcon, its engines are hardly glowing, smoke is pouring our of half a dozen holes in its hull, we've knocked off yet another sensor dish, and I can see one of her gunners hanging dead in the turret... but we've been battling her for 60 minutes** and they're about to close this sector*** so pack it in, boys, looks like she wins this time."

Games being limited by time is an unfortunate consequence of competitive play, not an accurate representation of the outcome of a real battle, which is what the game of X-Wing is supposed to represent.

*Incidentally, this is also why I dislike a barrel-roll or de-cloak that puts you millimeters off the table forcing you to flee the fight. Why can an ace pilot misjudge an asteroid and "change his mind" mid-roll and somehow snap to the opposite direction, but he can't avoid accidentally leaving some mythical "zone of engagement"???

**Probably more like 60 seconds in an actual space battle.

***The store.

I don't really have a problem with it, thematically... you can explain it away with something like "Good job, Han - the senator got away while you distracted the Imperial scouting party," or "Artoo managed to fix the hyperdrive - Chewie, get us out of here!" Several of the mission have time limits, and you can always create a narrative to explain why...

And... its a game! At no point has anyone ever said "Basketball games should be played indefinitely until one team can no longer field 5 players." The time limit is part of the game. Who can score the most points (inside the rules) in the given time. No partial points are given for missed 3-point shots or layups that just didn't fall in. No baseball fans are suggesting half points for runners left on 3rd!

Here's my favorite rebel transport X-Wing build:

Hobbie Klivian:

R2D6

Push The Limit

Focus, push to target lock, gain stress, in the combat you shoot and spend the target lock to clear stress. Great offensive output. Same cost as Wedge but at range 1 he's more deadly than Wedge and not much worse at range 2-3. If a certain mathwing genius wouldn't mind, it would be cool to get the jousting numbers on him.

Of course there are some other differences. Granted you're losing out on the PS bid, but there's also a surivability advantage in not being named "Wedge Antilles". Also by firing later you're maximizing your chances that the opponent has already spent their focus.

On an unrelated note, the Paul Heaver Gunner/R2D2 powerpoint story made me laugh. He's an evil genius!

We will have to have Bob run the numbers on that combo, I like it! A Lot!

Why do we keep talking about partial points?!?

I think I covered that in the podcast?

Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed reply.

First, let me say I hope you are taking this discussion in the manor that it is intended. Tone is hard to gauge in text. Here is the premise for my friendly argument with such ideas:

Before we start to explore what IS NOT in the game for ways to improve it, we should first look at what IS. I would readily agree that the 60 minute round creates a drastically different game than the 75 minute round. That being said, you should know what to prepare for when heading to your local tournament. If we the players feel that 60 minutes has limited us to a type of list, then we should demand of our tournament holders the return of the 75 minute round. This solves the issue with a new set of rules. It also keeps the core mechanic of the game the same, whether you're playing a friendly, epic, or tournament style match.

One must also be honest about the 60 minute match too though. It allows for a different kind of game. In my local meta, few players are taking advantage of what this shorter time frame affords you. Yes, Fat Han is still a popular build. As is high HP centered builds. What also should be popular are cheap ships with hard hitting ordnance. A-wings are a pain in the butt to hit if they don't want to be and can survive a single joust. This is all they need to unload their missile. I'm shocked I haven't seen more loaded Y-wings. I've had great success using their tankiness to get into position, ion the opponent, and then unload torpedoes with tokens in my favor.

I know you play a lot of X-wing, as do I. You are well aware of the pros and the cons of the things I have mentioned. You are also well aware of the weaknesses of the list you brought to the 60 minute tournament. Do I wish I could fly Defenders with better success than I do? Sure, and I still try. Am I willing to suggest that new rules are created to satisfy this want? No. I conclude with how I started my reply: Let us look to what is already in the game to change it for the best before we look outside of the rules. I firmly believe the 75 minute format is the better choice for tournaments for many of the reasons you want partial points. The difference is, no one has to learn a new system. The game remains the same game we fell in love with and has been tried and tested.

Ordnance is still very finicky. I've seen too many Ion Torps or Assault missiles roll a blank, blank, focus, hit... Prockets are decent but they are harder to unload than you would think. Especially if you are running a prototype at only PS 1 and are trying to hunt ships with higher PS. I'm hoping the hinted at Bomber upgrades offers something to help ordnance be more reliable. Right now they aren't a decent counter to large ships because you just can rely on them hitting with enough dice.

Why do we keep talking about partial points?!?

I think I covered that in the podcast?

Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed reply.

First, let me say I hope you are taking this discussion in the manor that it is intended. Tone is hard to gauge in text. Here is the premise for my friendly argument with such ideas:

Before we start to explore what IS NOT in the game for ways to improve it, we should first look at what IS. I would readily agree that the 60 minute round creates a drastically different game than the 75 minute round. That being said, you should know what to prepare for when heading to your local tournament. If we the players feel that 60 minutes has limited us to a type of list, then we should demand of our tournament holders the return of the 75 minute round. This solves the issue with a new set of rules. It also keeps the core mechanic of the game the same, whether you're playing a friendly, epic, or tournament style match.

One must also be honest about the 60 minute match too though. It allows for a different kind of game. In my local meta, few players are taking advantage of what this shorter time frame affords you. Yes, Fat Han is still a popular build. As is high HP centered builds. What also should be popular are cheap ships with hard hitting ordnance. A-wings are a pain in the butt to hit if they don't want to be and can survive a single joust. This is all they need to unload their missile. I'm shocked I haven't seen more loaded Y-wings. I've had great success using their tankiness to get into position, ion the opponent, and then unload torpedoes with tokens in my favor.

I know you play a lot of X-wing, as do I. You are well aware of the pros and the cons of the things I have mentioned. You are also well aware of the weaknesses of the list you brought to the 60 minute tournament. Do I wish I could fly Defenders with better success than I do? Sure, and I still try. Am I willing to suggest that new rules are created to satisfy this want? No. I conclude with how I started my reply: Let us look to what is already in the game to change it for the best before we look outside of the rules. I firmly believe the 75 minute format is the better choice for tournaments for many of the reasons you want partial points. The difference is, no one has to learn a new system. The game remains the same game we fell in love with and has been tried and tested.

Ordnance is still very finicky. I've seen too many Ion Torps or Assault missiles roll a blank, blank, focus, hit... Prockets are decent but they are harder to unload than you would think. Especially if you are running a prototype at only PS 1 and are trying to hunt ships with higher PS. I'm hoping the hinted at Bomber upgrades offers something to help ordnance be more reliable. Right now they aren't a decent counter to large ships because you just can rely on them hitting with enough dice.

Nothing is guaranteed, and I hope it stays that way. The element of chance mixed into the skill and strategy is what makes it a game.

I've had great success with low level platforms when up against large ships. They are easy to block and set up for the killer token backed assault the round following.

I believe I have conveyed this before on the show, but Ordinance is one of the things that really have not functioned very well in this game. At least not as well as I believe they were intended to that is. I am not sure if an FAQ or a new subtle rule change will be enough to make them more reliable and seen in competitive play. I really feel that this is something that can only be corrected with a re-think of the whole mechanic and a potential change to how they work overall.

I truly believe that this will be something that is revisited in a version 2.0 of X-Wing, but I also believe that this is a long way down the road.

I think partial points were an issue with the Fat's in the world of Wave 5. Now that I've played several games with autothrusters (and won a store championship with dual IG-88s w/autos), I'm convinced that the fat's meta will be curbed heavily.

I was more or less able to ignore turrets until *I* was ready to engage them, once I did, it was simply me pealing off shields while they did zero damage. The 88's were easily able to shrug off 3 hits twice (w/gunner) each turn from Han. I'm sure the popularity of turrets in the Calgary area has been reduced significantly from that tournament showing. This will filter throughout the global meta over time, auto's and 88's will do a lot to even out that reliance on the fats, bringing 60 points to the table that don't contribute to doing damage to your opponent is extremely frustrating.

Also, hearing that wave 7 will have 'something coming' for ordinance, the big ships will be punished more by ordinance than any other type of ship. 60 points and 13 hit points vs missiles is very fragile, today the issue is missiles are expensive and too action heavy to be effective, but if that changes with wave 7, the fatties will be punished.

And I don't think FFG agrees with your t

I believe I have conveyed this before on the show, but Ordinance is one of the things that really have not functioned very well in this game. At least not as well as I believe they were intended to that is. I am not sure if an FAQ or a new subtle rule change will be enough to make them more reliable and seen in competitive play. I really feel that this is something that can only be corrected with a re-think of the whole mechanic and a potential change to how they work overall.

I truly believe that this will be something that is revisited in a version 2.0 of X-Wing, but I also believe that this is a long way down the road.

Ordinance is a high risk/high reward element of the game. We, as tournament players, have become jaded to this. There are upgrades and pilot abilities that add to the success of these one-time use weapons. They shine even more in epic and mission formats. I'm not sure FFG feels there is anything wrong with Ordinance. I think the bomb changes they have hinted on will be what we have seen in the past, more options and not a shake-up of the mechanic.

I think the trap we all fall into is rigid thinking. When something doesn't fit into the play-style we have beat to death we throw are hands up and demand a "fix". The odds are good to know and will help build a solid list, but Han Solo didn't play by the odds. This came back and bit him from time to time, but when he won, he won big. That is the fun element ordinance brings to this game. It provides the "didn't plan for that, did you?" look you can shoot your opponent who is running a vanilla list they pulled from a recent regional tournament.

Ok, so I know there are people from a couple of different regions on the podcast (Ed is in Pittsburg, for example). When you talk about the stress meta becoming prevalent, which region(s) are you talking about?

One must also be honest about the 60 minute match too though. It allows for a different kind of game.

That's what it boils down to right there. The game is what it is because of being timed, which you described really well. And it is certainly not just a problem at 60 minutes. Some people have consistent issues finishing games in 75 minutes, which is fine. The specific time limit just exasperates the existing underlying condition. So we know where we are right now, it is a question of if there is a better alternative.

It comes down to 2 options:

• Keep the system the same. The rules strongly encourage illegal play that is fundamentally not enforceable, and it creates an atmosphere conducive to player disputes. I can't imagine that this is what the developers had in mind.
• Fix all of the above at the expense of making the scoring system more complicated.

I think Sean's other point was a good one re: timed matches - if you do partial points, people are just going to game the system the other way and fly lots of frustratingly hard to hit ships that spread the points way out.

So, this is an interesting point that I would have discussed during the cast, but we had already spent far too long on it so I let it be. I do agree with Sean that calculating partial points MoV is risky from an organizational standpoint, although I do think that it is manageable with the right scoring sheet, even using the existing software solutions.

But I disagree with his other point that you could game the partial points system by flying A-wings (tanks) instead of the stereotypical glass cannons. If you score fully partial points there is zero way to game the system.

• If you choose to fly a wounded ship away, it doesn't hurt your opponent, because the partial points have already been scored. It actually helps your opponent because now he can focus fire on your remaining ships.
• If you build and fly your squad defensively, then it is true that you will make it harder for the opponent to score points on you. But this is offset by your inability to offensively score points on your opponent. There is no free lunch. There is no magical way of preventing your opponent from getting any hits on you at all, while still doing at least some damage to them. Building and flying defensively just means that the rate of points scored by both sides will be slower and the game is more likely to go to time. There's some underlying mathematical realities at play here that I could get into, but lets just look at the example of spreading your opponent's fire across multiple ships. In the current system, your opponent scores zero points. In the partial points system, your opponent scores points proportional to the actual damage dealt. This example actually makes an argument for partial points, not against it. Note that focus fire is still the better tactical option most of the time even with partial point scoring.

Or, let's use the match MJ described. Once you had your opponent's Talas dead, MJ, why would you not just be the Han running away, since you would have a huge partial point lead that point?

OK, so first off, my my competitive strategy is to use the "Conan" philosophy:

To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!

So naturaly I am always going to go for the full kill. But lets look at the example. The answer is actually quite simple: because I can get an even bigger MoV by completely wiping him out, because of the snowball effect. In this case my Horn died before his Talas did, so lets look at the game at 3 points. I might not have the hit point numbers exact, but they are pretty close so you get the general idea.

Snapshot #1: at the tail end of the initial pass.

Player 1: 24 points scored against

Phat Han: 13/13

Sad Horn: 2/5

Player 2: 47 points scored against

Fat Han: 5/13

Tala #1: 2/4

Tala #2: 4/4

So by partial points I would be winning 47-24, and if the game stopped right here I would have an MoV of +23 points.

But contextually, even more important was the fact that his Han was stressed and lined up heading directly into a dense asteroid field, so he really had no choice but to fly straight through it to safely clear stress, and leave his Han out of combat for at least 3 rounds. If my Horn lives, then great, it's my Han + Horn vs his 2 Talas. If my Horn dies, then my Han can still completely clean up his Talas with relative ease and then mop up his Han later. Denying my opponent's 62 point ship any shots while I kill the rest of his squad is the best possible strategy in an untimed game.

Snapshot #2: He manages to kill my Horn, does a little damage to my Han, and I kill his Talas in the process of trying to get my Han to close the distance to his.

Player 1: 49 points scored against

Phat Han: 11/13

Sad Horn: 0/5

Player 2: 76 points scored against

Fat Han: 5/13

Tala #1: 0/4

Tala #2: 0/4

So by partial points I am now winning 76-49, and if the game stopped here I would have an MoV of +27. This is an improvement over the earlier +23 MoV. His Han has Luke gunner, but my Han has triple actions once I close the distance. He can't both boost and evade (he had VI not PtL), so basically we are both going to be doing 1 point of damage to each other each turn. If I can ever get in range 1 then I would have a distinct advantage.

Snapshot #3: game end:

Player 1: 63 points scored against

Phat Han: 8/13

Sad Horn: 0/5

Player 2: 95 points scored against

Fat Han: 1/13

Tala #1: 0/4

Tala #2: 0/4

With partial points, I am now winning 95-63, for an MoV of +32. Once I gained the lead from way up above, my partial points MoV kept increasing. I also had him at range 2 this round, with an almost certain range 1 shot next round. Even if he was going to bump me next round (after time), I was going to pick up a free TL on him first, that I would then use in a subsequent round. If it were untimed there was really no way he could have won.

Instead, he got a modified win with 40-38 MoV. That is the way the game is scored under the current system, so my hats off to him for playing the game the way the rules are written, and going on to win the tournament.

And... its a game! At no point has anyone ever said "Basketball games should be played indefinitely until one team can no longer field 5 players." The time limit is part of the game. Who can score the most points (inside the rules) in the given time. No partial points are given for missed 3-point shots or layups that just didn't fall in. No baseball fans are suggesting half points for runners left on 3rd!

That is a poor example though, because there are typically around 35-50 scores counted for each side during a basketball game. The equivalent analogy you are making for X-wing is that if there were 40 ships on each side of the table, that partial points would be unnecessary. That is true, but that is an entirely different game. You don't need partial points when there are that many scores. Contrast this to X-wing where there are commonly only 0 or 1 scores counted by one side during a game that is still considered close down to the wire.

The quantization noise is too high in X-wing.

Why do we keep talking about partial points?!? Did you kill the ship or not? It is an easy mechanic. If you want to kill this game fast, put some kind of complicated partial points math into it.

The first thing a player should learn (if they want to win games) is how to concentrate fire and how to keep your opponent from focusing fire on one of your ships. (This is why Biggs is such a great X-wing). The reason why Xizor is a game changing pilot is because he can deflect damage to a range one ship of his choosing. Keeping your opponent from landing consistent damage on the same ship is how you win this game.

Because the Falcon surviving on one hull gets a disproportionate MoV advantage against fewer ships.

But that player PAYED for those HP points! The disadvantage to that player is how many points they loose when it is lost.

...

It is the opposite tactic as a swarm. And that is what will become popular if partial points come into play... the swarm. Why on earth would anyone load up an E-wing, YT, or other expensive ship when all your opponent has to do is 50% damage to it to score? It will be a game filled with tie swarms all over again.

There is no disadvantage to the Han player. If you spend 60 points on a ship or set of ships and it gets fully destroyed, then the points are scored. The only difference is that because of no partial point scoring, the Han player gets a strong advantage if he is not completely destroyed.

The only solution to not giving your opponents points, is to not bring those points to begin with. This actually IS a viable strategy in the tournament play right now, as we have results with 87 point squads, and even an 80 point squad. These squads could bring a cheap filler ship, but intentionally choose not to because of the way MoV is scored. This would not completely go away with partial point scoring, but it certainly wouldn't get any worse.

... 2nd half:

• This is why half-points only moves the goal post and doesn't solve the underlying problem, you need to go full partial points.
• Swarms still lose against many matchups, even including against some Fat Hans. They would become viable again, but they would not be auto-win.

In 75 minute rounds one could take out the escorts first, but not in a shorter time frame.

There is no arbitrary game length at which you can declare that you will have enough time to finish the game. Our game potentially still could have gone to time even at 90 minutes if he had continued to play at his original pace. Thankfully he recognized the situation and sped up his play, but a win-at-all-costs type of player could have continued to drag the game out, and the tournament rule against slow play is fundamentally unenforceable. The rules don't even say what the penalty is for slow play. Is it forfeiture of the match? Is it disqualification? Do you just extend that round by 15 minutes to let it play out properly?

If running away is a viable strategy and slow play is not explicitly defined or enforceable, then you are assuring that win-at-all-costs players can come in and ruin the game. Bring an expensive ship, get a lead, then slow play. If the other player says you are slow playing, then just disagree that you aren't. They can't prove it and there is no metric by which to judge it. Generally this extreme example is thankfully not routine, but the only thing stopping it from happening is that players typically choose not to play that way. That's not something that you can count on in the future. There is no feedback mechanism against this kind of culture creeping into X-wing. On the contrary, the current tournament rules are actively pushing the culture in this direction. Players that are more interested in a "fair fight", will be discouraged from wanting to play in more sanctioned tournaments in the future. Win-at-all-costs players won't care and will play anyway.

Here's my favorite rebel transport X-Wing build:

Hobbie Klivian:

R2D6

Push The Limit

Focus, push to target lock, gain stress, in the combat you shoot and spend the target lock to clear stress. Great offensive output. Same cost as Wedge but at range 1 he's more deadly than Wedge and not much worse at range 2-3. If a certain mathwing genius wouldn't mind, it would be cool to get the jousting numbers on him.

I will have to run those numbers later, good idea!

Ok, so I know there are people from a couple of different regions on the podcast (Ed is in Pittsburg, for example). When you talk about the stress meta becoming prevalent, which region(s) are you talking about?

I think that was in reference to the Virginia NOVA area.

Ok, so I know there are people from a couple of different regions on the podcast (Ed is in Pittsburg, for example). When you talk about the stress meta becoming prevalent, which region(s) are you talking about?

I think that was in reference to the Virginia NOVA area.

Thanks, MJ. I have an Imperial stress build I was condiering taking to a store championship tomorrow, but I haven't had time to fine tune it (still fighting with myself on a couple of upgrades), so I was thinking about falling back to an old favorite with some changes (Firespray plus 2 squints). Problem is, squints may have problems in a stress meta tourney. Hoping to get some practice in today with the stress build and finalize it.

And I don't think FFG agrees with your t

I believe I have conveyed this before on the show, but Ordinance is one of the things that really have not functioned very well in this game. At least not as well as I believe they were intended to that is. I am not sure if an FAQ or a new subtle rule change will be enough to make them more reliable and seen in competitive play. I really feel that this is something that can only be corrected with a re-think of the whole mechanic and a potential change to how they work overall.

I truly believe that this will be something that is revisited in a version 2.0 of X-Wing, but I also believe that this is a long way down the road.

Ordinance is a high risk/high reward element of the game. We, as tournament players, have become jaded to this. There are upgrades and pilot abilities that add to the success of these one-time use weapons. They shine even more in epic and mission formats. I'm not sure FFG feels there is anything wrong with Ordinance. I think the bomb changes they have hinted on will be what we have seen in the past, more options and not a shake-up of the mechanic.

I think the trap we all fall into is rigid thinking. When something doesn't fit into the play-style we have beat to death we throw are hands up and demand a "fix". The odds are good to know and will help build a solid list, but Han Solo didn't play by the odds. This came back and bit him from time to time, but when he won, he won big. That is the fun element ordinance brings to this game. It provides the "didn't plan for that, did you?" look you can shoot your opponent who is running a vanilla list they pulled from a recent regional tournament.

I think they do. Prockets, IMPs (both let you keep tokens), MF are cards that show they know ordnance isn't as helpful as it should be. They pay attention to tourney results and the meta. The Tie Advanced buff is the proof of this. They realized that it was barely used in competitive play and its getting a nice buff.

Myself I think when we discuss the meta as a whole, we do marginally ignore the potential for regional metas only in that it is so hard to track all of that. I know when I look at tournament results, I look at them in comparison to what I obviously see locally, nationally in the Store Championships, and of course globally on what is big on Vassal right now.

However, regionally is something we really should address. Thanks for the advice!

One must also be honest about the 60 minute match too though. It allows for a different kind of game.

That's what it boils down to right there. The game is what it is because of being timed, which you described really well. And it is certainly not just a problem at 60 minutes. Some people have consistent issues finishing games in 75 minutes, which is fine. The specific time limit just exasperates the existing underlying condition. So we know where we are right now, it is a question of if there is a better alternative.

It comes down to 2 options:

• Keep the system the same. The rules strongly encourage illegal play that is fundamentally not enforceable, and it creates an atmosphere conducive to player disputes. I can't imagine that this is what the developers had in mind.
• Fix all of the above at the expense of making the scoring system more complicated.

I fundamentally disagree with your "only two options". You have given what is called a Propositional Fallacy. (If not A, it must be B). You have also jumped to conclusions that the current system encourages illegal play and is not enforceable. These statements are not backed with facts. It is my experience that a good TO keeps these kinds of things from happening. If this is not the case where you are playing, fix this or find new people to play with. I'm always a proponent for education and would love to see a TO program (with proper rewards) set up by FFG.

Games have time limits. (Maybe the word's most popular sport, soccer, is a better example for X-wing. Little scoring and ties are possible. "keep-a-way" is a viable tactic for the team in the lead.) This is not only a good thing, but needed. Partial points would radically change this game. Big expensive ships were created by FFG with a 60 to 75 minute time frame in mind. The draw back to taking a big ship is the point suck. The gain is the points protected if you can keep it on the board. Again, it would radically change the game to alter this truth. There are more problems than just "a more complicated system" when it comes to partial points.

Again, why insist on reinventing the wheel? Why throw the baby out with the bath water? First, let us explore what is IN the format of the rules and how this can be used to improve the game before we begin to explore stepping outside of these rules. Stepping outside of these rules to create new ones will upset the balance of the individual pieces that were created with the current rules in mind.