I fundamentally disagree with your "only two options". You have given what is called a Propositional Fallacy. (If not A, it must be B).

Technically you are correct, there are a variety of ways in which the game could be changed. Of all the options of changing the scoring system, partial points seems to be the best. I don't count "stop playing the game at tournaments" as an option because that deals with the player's choice, and I am talking about the designer's perspective. Again, I am open to suggestions. Fundamentally though, you can either leave the game the same, or you can change it. A or not A.

???

1. The current system encourages you to bring a Point Fortress and slow play once you get a lead, because a 1HP ship doesn't provide any points for your opponent. Therefore if you can drag the game out then you can win by stalling. It does not work in all matchups, but when it does apply, it is the optimal strategy that the rules encourage. That is a fact.
2. Intentional slow play is illegal. That is a also a fact per the tournament rules.
3. The interpretation of "intentional" slow play will vary drastically based on the people involved and the situation. This is also a fact. Therefore there is no clearly enforceable method to prevent slow play.

I'm always a proponent for education and would love to see a TO program (with proper rewards) set up by FFG.

Yup, 100% agree. And I can speak for Sean when I say that he agrees 200%. Unfortunately in this case it wouldn't really help, since there is no guidance in the rules to address slow play. It just makes the TO more aware of potential disputes, but the resolution phase is still ambiguous.

• If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
• Quit.

I do have the personality type to try and fix and improve things though. It drives some people crazy. But you're right in the sense that if you don't want to change anything, then the entire conversation is pointless. FFG made the rules, so either deal with it and either play the game, or don't play tournaments.

And that is the real issue I am raising. The tournament rules kind of encourage some players to just quit rather than deal with it. That's not good for the long term health of the game.

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.

OK, so the easiest way to analyze this is to just increase his damage output by giving him a free Target Lock each round. Hobbie's pilot ability isn't actually directly computed; it is just more convenient that he doesn't end the round stressed. I have numbers that getting a free target lock boosts a 3 dice attack from about 1.7 normalized to 2.47 normalized.

So that would get you a raw PS1 jousting value of ~21.9, up from 17.8 on a stock X-wing. The equivalent PS5 jousting value would be about 21.9*(1 + 4/24) = 25.5.

Hobbie already costs 25 points, plus the +4 you just added on. So the jousting efficiency (negating his ability which is essentially built into the above damage number), is 25.5/29 = 88%. So it's still only slightly better than what he was before, and on par with the Rookie X-wing but at a slightly higher PS and damage output.

MajorJuggler, reading your posts makes me so thankful for the area I play in. Even in 60 minute matches, it is a rarity that games do not finish within time. I have TOed many games myself and find simple interaction and presence keeps everything honest. When I'm told (later) that someone was suspected of cheating I always ask why I (or the TO) was not notified? (This is rare or it is an event I'm not TOing.) Nothing can be corrected if consistent play is not enforced.

The more I read our back and forths, the more I can't help but think the TO is the problem and not the current rules. Talk with your TO before hand and discuss your past problems. You may not agree with his ideas/rulings but this will help them to be consistent and know what the players' concerns are.

As a TO I want to help you have a more pleasurable experience. Dramatic rule and game change conversations are unproductive. The game's rules are in place. Minor tweaks may happen, but FFG has not for the life of this product dramatically changed any function of this game. Personally I feel the rules are what makes this game so great. If you were a player at a tournament I was TOing and you came to me (before the beginning of play) with a valid concern, like slow playing, I would happily address it not only with you, but with the entire group of contestants. I believe I CAN specifically define what slow play is and enforce that ruling consistently.

If you think you can come up with a dramatic rule change that will take the need for TOs (and eliminate human error) from this game you are set to make a fortune sir! No game has accomplished this goal. The more complicated the rules, the greater the chance for inconsistency and human error.

MajorJuggler, what about serissu in place of the two Zs gets you ps10 and protection for torkil

MajorJuggler, reading your posts makes me so thankful for the area I play in. Even in 60 minute matches, it is a rarity that games do not finish within time. I have TOed many games myself and find simple interaction and presence keeps everything honest. When I'm told (later) that someone was suspected of cheating I always ask why I (or the TO) was not notified? (This is rare or it is an event I'm not TOing.) Nothing can be corrected if consistent play is not enforced.

The more I read our back and forths, the more I can't help but think the TO is the problem and not the current rules. Talk with your TO before hand and discuss your past problems. You may not agree with his ideas/rulings but this will help them to be consistent and know what the players' concerns are.

As a TO I want to help you have a more pleasurable experience. Dramatic rule and game change conversations are unproductive. The game's rules are in place. Minor tweaks may happen, but FFG has not for the life of this product dramatically changed any function of this game. Personally I feel the rules are what makes this game so great. If you were a player at a tournament I was TOing and you came to me (before the beginning of play) with a valid concern, like slow playing, I would happily address it not only with you, but with the entire group of contestants. I believe I CAN specifically define what slow play is and enforce that ruling consistently.

If you think you can come up with a dramatic rule change that will take the need for TOs (and eliminate human error) from this game you are set to make a fortune sir! No game has accomplished this goal. The more complicated the rules, the greater the chance for inconsistency and human error.

The problem you run into is that while slow play is illegal, so is rushing your opponent. If the player isn't clearly delaying (and it sounds like the guy MajorJuggler was playing was slow and deliberate from turn one) then trying to speed them up and threatening to call over a TO might be considered rushing.

If your opponent is trying to stall you, the time it takes to call over the TO and explain the situation just plays into their hands.

I don't get why FFG uses modified wins if they are also using MoV. Winning by 11 points is already enough of a hit to MoV that awarding only a modified win seems like it is punishing you twice.

MajorJuggler, reading your posts makes me so thankful for the area I play in. Even in 60 minute matches, it is a rarity that games do not finish within time. I have TOed many games myself and find simple interaction and presence keeps everything honest. When I'm told (later) that someone was suspected of cheating I always ask why I (or the TO) was not notified? (This is rare or it is an event I'm not TOing.) Nothing can be corrected if consistent play is not enforced.

There is not a lot of X-wing in my immediate area. There is a more regular group up towards Boston (incidentally where the other player traveled an hour+ from), and also along the 95 corridor between Providence and Boston. I'm trying to build up a community at my local (20 minutes away) store, but I don't have the time right now to really fully dive in, what with finishing the dissertation on nights and weekends.

We have a lot of new players so even games at 75 minutes frequently go to time. And some like this other player just play more intentionally and slowly. So if you can finish games in 60 minutes that's great. But you can't force people to play faster, especially if they are new, or are just generally very meticulous. It sounds like your group probably gets in about the same number of turns in a 45 minute time period that we get in many or most 75 minute games. So timing and partial points is a big deal under those circumstances.

But even with fast play plenty of 60 minute games will go to time. Sean was looking at the number of games that went to time last summer at Nationals with 60 minute rounds, and it was a lot. And those are all experienced players. I'm not against 60 minute rounds for larger tournaments, they are needed to wrap up before the wee hours of the morning. But fair and "accurate" point counting is an unfortunate casualty.

A lot of it is preference. I just don't enjoy playing the points game. It doesn't really feel like either Star Wars or a tactical military battle. It's a numbers game about figuring out the break points in the squads, getting your points and then keeping the lead. Anyone who doesn't take big fat ships is at a strong disadvantage, and competitively it is conform or die. Bleh.

I appreciate the proactive concern, but unfortunately there's no way you can predict slow play ahead of time, especially against players you have never met before. But it still leads us to the original problem of: what if it is NOT slow play, but the game doesn't finish in time anyway? That is really the core issue. If you solve that issue then slow play is irrelevant because it won't grant an artificial advantage.

For example, what if time was called and I had a 13HP 60 point Han vs his 1HP 62 point Han? Is that still fair that the 1HP Han gets the win because the base cost of that ship is 2 points more? It just doesn't make sense. Enforcing slow play is all well and good, but it just moves the goal post. "Fair" scoring is always going to be an issue without partial points in timed matches.

I think your answer on this point is clear, it is something along the lines of "FFG made the rules, don't even bother discussing changing them", but in general I think it is a topic worthy of some discussion. Everyone will have their 2 cents.

Yeah, you might be onto something there. TOs will always be needed for the rules aspect. Point scoring is just a matter of routine once you have done it once. With good software the points scoring would be trivial, which leaves the TOs free to handle things like actual complex rule questions.

I don't get why FFG uses modified wins if they are also using MoV. Winning by 11 points is already enough of a hit to MoV that awarding only a modified win seems like it is punishing you twice.

For this particular tourney it was only 5 players, so MoV didn't really matter. Whoever won 3 games was going to be the tourney winner regardless if they were partial wins or not. MoV only mattered for deciding the victory condition.

The problem you run into is that while slow play is illegal, so is rushing your opponent. If the player isn't clearly delaying (and it sounds like the guy MajorJuggler was playing was slow and deliberate from turn one) then trying to speed them up and threatening to call over a TO might be considered rushing.

If your opponent is trying to stall you, the time it takes to call over the TO and explain the situation just plays into their hands.

Yeah, very true on both accounts. You can have two completely honest players and still run into "unfair" scoring issues. And you can also have a nefarious player that, ironically, gains a further advantage by dragging the TO into it.

MajorJuggler, what about serissu in place of the two Zs gets you ps10 and protection for torkil

Good question. I have been thinking about what to put in place of the 2 Z-95's, but in general I like them. Having 5 ships to fill the field can be pretty important in blocking Phantom decloak positions. PS10 doesn't really do anything for you vs Phantoms if you only have 2 attack dice. And the point is to make his ship PS0 anyway, so you don't have to waste points on the PS bid.

I do want to mention briefly how the TO at our local events handles things (hi Arbra if you're on here!). I don't know how feasible it is beyond our store, but it's his way of preventing "gaming the clock". It works and it's met with approval by the players. Basically, he fudges the times a little bit so no one knows the exact second a round is going to end. Rounds are 65-ish minutes, and he gives warnings when there are 5-ish minutes left. Only he knows what's what. It allows the players to focus on the game and not worry about the clock. Overall, an enjoyable experience where the majority of games do not go to time.

Stone37, I'm curious what you or anyone else have to lose by FFG changing to a partial scoring system. It sounds like you're just defending it for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Change is usually a good thing for games, it keeps them from stagnating and people from getting bored.

You said it's fair that Falcons have the advantage because the player paid 60 points for the HP. Well someone who brings 4 A-Wings also paid 60 points for even more HP, but if those A-Wings lose 12 HP, they lose 45 points, but if the Falcon loses 12 hp it, loses 0 points. Does that really seem fair? Especially when you consider that a 60 point Falcon is capable of throwing out 12 red dice at range 2 in a single turn?

The Falcon doesn't need MOV to prop it up as a competitive ship.

Step it up fellas.

This entire episode was boring ass-math and a circle jerk about how you are all nubbin the big names and winning in every tournament... YAWN, YAWN, YAWN!!!

You talked about Rebel Epic for like ten whole minutes.

Having been on the receiving end of a wounded big ship running away, especially when I couldn't catch it or was only chasing with 2-dice ships that wouldn't get through Han + C3PO's defenses, I've felt the pain that would have been reduced by a partial points system.

On the other hand, I'm wondering what the unintended consequences would be for partial points scoring system. My initial fear is that the result would actually be the opposite of what is intended: it would encourage the use of large ships and discourage the use of small, high PS ships, because the marginal value of a point of damage scored against a large high defense ship is so much lower than against an expensive small ship.

Choosing random examples from my past opponents:

60-point Han/YT: 4.6 points returned per point of damage inflicted

50-point Cdr Kenkirk: 3.125 points returned per point of damage inflicted

35-point loaded Soontir: 11.6 points returned per point of damage inflicted

25-point naked Biggs: 5 points returned per point of damage inflicted

42-point loaded Corran Horn: 8.4 points returned per point of damage inflicted

12-point Z-95: 3 points per point of damage

12-point Academy TIE: 4 points per point of damage

18-point Howlrunner: 6 points per point of damage

39-point loaded Whisper: 9.75 points per point of damage

Looks like this would shift the meta toward loaded big ships and low-PS swarms, to me. (Admittedly this doesn't take into account the ease of inflicting a point of damage, which is easier on a Decimator than on Soontir, so perhaps the difference in damage value is warranted -- @MajorJuggler would need to do the detailed analysis to come up with a mechanism to correct these marginal point values based on the difficulty of realizing the damage.)

An alternative partial scoring approach would simply be to score based on the ratio of total list defensive value vs total damage received, which would neutralize the advantage of big or cheap ships some, but then the outcome would be to drive lists to maximum total defense, so we'd see a lot of dual Decimator and 4-B lists to get max hit points in the list, which I also think would be detrimental -- so ultimately I think this approach is worse than a by-ship partial scoring like MJ suggests.

Another more accurate approach would require balancing scoring value by ship, but that just goes off so far into scoring difficulty that it's not worth pursuing.

So for me, for the moment, if given the option I'd vote for the scoring system to remain unchanged.

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.

OK, so the easiest way to analyze this is to just increase his damage output by giving him a free Target Lock each round. Hobbie's pilot ability isn't actually directly computed; it is just more convenient that he doesn't end the round stressed. I have numbers that getting a free target lock boosts a 3 dice attack from about 1.7 normalized to 2.47 normalized.

So that would get you a raw PS1 jousting value of ~21.9, up from 17.8 on a stock X-wing. The equivalent PS5 jousting value would be about 21.9*(1 + 4/24) = 25.5.

Hobbie already costs 25 points, plus the +4 you just added on. So the jousting efficiency (negating his ability which is essentially built into the above damage number), is 25.5/29 = 88%. So it's still only slightly better than what he was before, and on par with the Rookie X-wing but at a slightly higher PS and damage output.

Thank you for running the numbers, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed by the results. It just seems so good on the table.

I guess the main limitation is the X-Wing's action bar. As you say, it means I'm pretty much paying 4 points to give Hobbie a free TL every turn.

I thought you hate epic Ed?

Just a commonet on R4-D6. In rounds where you have a focus and know you'll be taking more shots any time you take at least three only spend your focus if doing so would bring you down to taking only one point of damage. This lets you use the focus on later attacks. I know that's not enough to make this droid an auotinclude anywhere but I think it makes it a bit more useful.

Y-Wings are also going to be as good a place for this droid since it's very likely that they'll take 3+ uncanceled hits with the Y-Wing's one agility.

I am starting to come around on Epic to be perfectly honest with you. While I prefer the standard game, Epic does have its finer points.

Having been on the receiving end of a wounded big ship running away, especially when I couldn't catch it or was only chasing with 2-dice ships that wouldn't get through Han + C3PO's defenses, I've felt the pain that would have been reduced by a partial points system.

On the other hand, I'm wondering what the unintended consequences would be for partial points scoring system. My initial fear is that the result would actually be the opposite of what is intended: it would encourage the use of large ships and discourage the use of small, high PS ships, because the marginal value of a point of damage scored against a large high defense ship is so much lower than against an expensive small ship.

Choosing random examples from my past opponents:

60-point Han/YT: 4.6 points returned per point of damage inflicted

50-point Cdr Kenkirk: 3.125 points returned per point of damage inflicted

35-point loaded Soontir: 11.6 points returned per point of damage inflicted

25-point naked Biggs: 5 points returned per point of damage inflicted

42-point loaded Corran Horn: 8.4 points returned per point of damage inflicted

12-point Z-95: 3 points per point of damage

12-point Academy TIE: 4 points per point of damage

18-point Howlrunner: 6 points per point of damage

39-point loaded Whisper: 9.75 points per point of damage

Looks like this would shift the meta toward loaded big ships and low-PS swarms, to me. (Admittedly this doesn't take into account the ease of inflicting a point of damage, which is easier on a Decimator than on Soontir, so perhaps the difference in damage value is warranted -- @MajorJuggler would need to do the detailed analysis to come up with a mechanism to correct these marginal point values based on the difficulty of realizing the damage.)

An alternative partial scoring approach would simply be to score based on the ratio of total list defensive value vs total damage received, which would neutralize the advantage of big or cheap ships some, but then the outcome would be to drive lists to maximum total defense, so we'd see a lot of dual Decimator and 4-B lists to get max hit points in the list, which I also think would be detrimental -- so ultimately I think this approach is worse than a by-ship partial scoring like MJ suggests.

Another more accurate approach would require balancing scoring value by ship, but that just goes off so far into scoring difficulty that it's not worth pursuing.

So for me, for the moment, if given the option I'd vote for the scoring system to remain unchanged.

Partial points could apply just to large bases, which would be more effective and appropriate (since it's more of a problem with the large bases and their point total combined with the amount of health and available defensive upgrades are what make them so useful in tournaments) and less cumbersome than applying it to everything.

I'd also keep it simple and make it just half points for more than half damage. There are a lot of ways to implement it.

I don't see how adding complexities to the tournament system (like partial points) would benefit enough to outweigh the negatives that come from it. I don't want a tournament experience that involves calculators, chess clocks, spread sheets, slide rules, etc. Some people get off on that but not me. I think X-wing has too much randomness, and hard countering of ships involved to go to that kind of level of competition.

I personally don't want to pull out a calculator at the end of a game, double-check my math, my opponent's math, and then give the TO a headache trying to get everything in and correct for the next round. The math isn't complex by any means, but when you've just done round 6 of a tournament, brain-fried, and trying to fat finger numbers into a phone calculator, it opens up too much room for error. And then when things get messed up, who does it fall on? The TO. The poor person who most likely isn't getting paid and not able to truly enjoy playing in the tournament.

And why not just count it as a benefit of having an expensive ship? There already are a number of drawbacks to dumping a ton of points into one basket. Thematically, it may seem silly that Han can win the game sitting with 1 hull, but maybe he held out or distracted the enemy enough until reinforcements arrived or another objective was complete.

It sounds like MajorJuggler got outplayed, and he seems to at least partially admit that. The "issue" wasn't so much a lack of partial points, but that his opponent was ahead of him on strategy, and used the benefits of VI along with engine upgrade to outmaneuver him (aka running away). It's a real way of winning, and should be, because ships pay big points for maneuverability. Winning the game isn't geared around killing (more than your opponent), but surviving (more than your opponent).

It's a real way of winning, and should be, because ships pay big points for maneuverability. Winning the game isn't geared around killing (more than your opponent), but surviving (more than your opponent).

Actually, based on the fact that the final round is supposed to be untimed, I'd say you're incorrect about what the "game is geared around." What you're talking about is a limitation posed by the tournament time limit, which yes, we should be aware of when we prepare our lists for the swiss and other rounds that aren't the final. That also doesn't mean that the limitations and rules in a tournament can't further be altered to adjust for the fact that ruleset inherently designed with a time limit in mind.

Partial points could apply just to large bases, which would be more effective and appropriate (since it's more of a problem with the large bases and their point total combined with the amount of health and available defensive upgrades are what make them so useful in tournaments) and less cumbersome than applying it to everything.

I'd also keep it simple and make it just half points for more than half damage. There are a lot of ways to implement it.

I think this is key. If it's really just big ships that are the problem, you could use either a points limit or a base size limit:

Example: All ships that cost more than 50 points that have fewer than half their starting hit points left are worth half their squad points to the opponent at the end of the game.

That would make "fat" ships count for effectively 2x 25-30 point ships for scoring purposes. They have the advantage that their firepower remains until the last HP is dropped (crits notwithstanding), but it rewards damaging them over the course of the game.

A rule such as this introduces a certain amount of gamesmanship for some ships that get close to 50 points, where some upgrades won't be taken to keep the ship somewhat cheaper. I guess it makes 52 points a pretty bad number for ships to cost (not enough extra goodies to be worth half points, not super-powerful like an arc-dodging fat turret). Nothing's perfect.

Regardless, it's mathematically very easy and shouldn't slow the game down any more than the current MOV system.

If you normalize those points based on 2 things, then they all come out about equal:

1. The relative difficulty of inflicting 1 HP on the target based on its agility and upgrade loadout.
2. The glass cannon to tank ratio.

As a really simply example, the durability coefficient for a 2-agility ship is roughly 75% of a 3 agility ship, so shooting at a TIE fighter or a Z-95 will, statistically, give you the same average points per shot.

Another example: Biggs's glass cannon to tank ratio is about 1.7, so when you normalize for that his points scored per hitpoint drops to 5/1.7=2.94, which is the same as the other 2 AGI ship here, the Z-95.

Another example: 37 point Whisper. The durability coefficient on 4 AGI vs 3 AGI is about 1.33. Whisper's glass cannon to tank ratio is about 2.5:2. So normalizing to both of these, you get:

(37/4) / (1.33*(2.5/2)) = 5.5

... which is a little higher than the 4 points for a PS1 TIE fighter. But this is not accounting for Whisper's pilot ability, or the cost associated with being PS9. Lets account for just the PS bid.

5.5/(1 + 8/24) = 4.125.

And now we are right back where we started with the PS1 TIE Fighter, ~4 points per shot. Of course this is before considering the value of the decloak maneuver or Whisper's pilot ability. Incidentally this is another mathematical proof for showing that PS9 Whisper is way more cost effective than a PS1 TIE Fighter, which we already knew from previous math (before wave 4 was released), and tournament results.

You can go down the list and basically get the same conclusion for each ship. The system would be extremely fair.

I am starting to come around on Epic to be perfectly honest with you. While I prefer the standard game, Epic does have its finer points.

After the Raider comes out and we have some time to get our heads wrapped around Epic play properly, we will have to go back and do a review. I will have to think about an equivalent mathwing value system for Epic ships the way I do for normal ships, but that won't be until summer.

Partial points could apply just to large bases, which would be more effective and appropriate (since it's more of a problem with the large bases and their point total combined with the amount of health and available defensive upgrades are what make them so useful in tournaments) and less cumbersome than applying it to everything.

I'd also keep it simple and make it just half points for more than half damage. There are a lot of ways to implement it.

It's also a problem with some small base ships though. Anything that has a lot of points wrapped up in it has the same problem. A good example are the 87 point squad and 80 point squad, which both have 2 extremely hard to kill small base ships. In Alex Davy's (extended?) interview he acknowledged that those squads surprised him. Hopefully he realizes that a large part of why those squads work is because of the partial points scoring system.

Half damage points reduces the quantization noise and so is better than what we have now, but it still has the same fundamental problems. See my examples further upthread.

I don't see how adding complexities to the tournament system (like partial points) would benefit enough to outweigh the negatives that come from it. I don't want a tournament experience that involves calculators, chess clocks, spread sheets, slide rules, etc. Some people get off on that but not me. I think X-wing has too much randomness, and hard countering of ships involved to go to that kind of level of competition.

I personally don't want to pull out a calculator at the end of a game, double-check my math, my opponent's math, and then give the TO a headache trying to get everything in and correct for the next round. The math isn't complex by any means, but when you've just done round 6 of a tournament, brain-fried, and trying to fat finger numbers into a phone calculator, it opens up too much room for error. And then when things get messed up, who does it fall on? The TO. The poor person who most likely isn't getting paid and not able to truly enjoy playing in the tournament.

I agree that clocks would be really bad. I think that would be a terrible solution that would kill the pacing and fun of the game, and it still would not solve the underlying problem.

This is why the ideal solution is to incorporate it into tournament software, so the players simply report how many hit points each ship has remaining at the end of each round. That is super easy and requires zero math. You still have to do math right now to add up the ship totals anyway, so the potential for adding up points incorrectly is already there. Partial point scoring with the proper software would actually be less risky than what we have right now.

Cutting through the rhetoric a little, of the 4 things you mentioned (calculators, clocks, spreadsheets, slide rules), only one of those would be needed without changing the tournament software, and that is the calculator. The only change is to the scoring sheet, and you can write it all out by hand on paper, though you will want a calculator for some ships.

The problem is that most expensive ships are already worth their cost even in untimed games. The extra "buff" they get from not giving partial points to the opponent is a free kicker, and is the reason that we are seeing tournament results dominated by 2-ship builds, or at least one "fat" ship.

Here's some math to demonstrate it. Lets just assume that both players 100% focus fire, so only one ship is targeted until it is dead, then they move on. Lets also assume that the game goes to time.

Player 1 has an 8-TIE Swarm. Damage done is almost immediately scored since his squad is broken up into 8 ships. At the end of the game he will have a TIE fighter at either 1 HP, 2 HP, or 3 HP. If we assume a probability distribution that is uniformly distributed (i.e. 1-3HP all have the same probability), then on average this leaves 4 points on the table that the opponent does not score.

Player 2 has a dual IG-88 list and each IG-88 is 50 points. One IG-88 at the end of the game will have 1-8HP remaining. On average this leaves 21.875 points on the table that the opponent does not score.

The difference is ~18 points. So by the current scoring system the dual IG-88 player has an automatic 18 point advantage if the game goes to time.

If the game does not go to time, then we can assume a 50% chance that the final ship on each side has 0 HP remaining. In this case, the difference is cut in half to about 9 points.

Since some games go to time, and some games do not go to time, the advantage of the IG-88 squad will be somewhere between 9 to 18 points. This is of course assuming that both sides focus fire 100%. If they do not, then it favors the dual IG-88 list even more, as it increases the likelihood that both IG-88s will take some damage, but not enough to kill either.

We can also look at a Fat Han the same way. If a 64 point Fat Han has a 50% chance of getting killed in a match (regardless if it is timed or not), then on average it will leave 15 points on the table that the opponent does not get credit for. This is still an 11 point advantage over the 8 TIE Swarm, just for showing up.

So there you have it. The current MoV strategy requires that you take at least one "Fat" ship in order to minimize the points that that you give your opponents. This is true even if 100% of your games complete before time. Actually playing the game and flying against other players is a net zero-sum game where some win and some lose. However bringing a squad that does not conform to this reality will put you at a statistical disadvantage.

It is not that simple. It is more accurate to say that:

1. The matchup made it nearly impossible for me to win under any scenario if the game went to time. (More on this below).
2. If the game were untimed or was judged based on partial points, there is absolutely no debate that I outflew him. I had him beat from the 2nd turn of combat.
3. He got lucky in that the game ended before I could finish him off. To his credit he played the game to give himself the greatest possible chance at this being the outcome.
4. Point #3 is true because he played slowly. It was more likely that this was because of his typical rate of play and not intentional slow play, given that 3 out of 6 of his games at 75 minutes have gone to time. In the 2 turns directly after my Horn got killed, it was taking 5-10 minutes for him to put down dials for his 3 ships. On one of those turns he was lining up Han K-turning through a dense asteroid field so took a while to debate that. I didn't record exactly how long those 2 turns took, but for both combined I think it was about in the 20+ minute range. Bear in mind that he only had 2 Z-95s that could shoot during those turns. Again, the point is not to try to say that he was intentionally slow playing, because I honestly don't know how you can judge that. I don't have an ACME brain-wave scanner.

More detail on point #1:

• His Han is PS11 vs my Horn at PS10. His Han has Engine Upgrade, and Luke crew. If I try and turtle with Horn, he will have no problem chasing my Horn down and killing him anyway. There is no scenario in which I can keep my Horn alive in this matchup against any competent player, regardless of initial asteroid and ship placement.
• His support ships are worth 38 points. My support ships are 40 points.
• Once my Horn dies (which we have established is impossible to avoid), he scores 40 points and the only way for me to win is to kill his Han.
• His Han can run away at PS11 with Engine Upgrade. And he plays slowly increasing the chance that the game goes to time.

So, in this particular matchup the result had already been predetermined even though I didn't not realize it until about 3 turns in: if the game goes to time, then he will win. If the game finishes, then I have a chance at winning. We both did exactly what we needed to do in order to give ourselves the best chance at winning. He just got a little lucky in that the game went to time, so he won. I went straight after his Han in the first exchange and got him down to 5 hull, but then it probably took me at least another 30-40 minutes before I could even get another shot off on him at all. I am not trying to excuse my Horn's death, but rather approach it from his perspective. He has a PS11 EU Luke gunner ship that can hunt down my non-regenerating Horn. For anyone that says "well just fly better to keep Horn alive" I challenge you to draw up a scenario in which you can keep Horn alive. It can't physically be done unless his Han rolls all blanks for the entire game.

So, to re-iterate, just think about this again for a moment: if the game goes to time he automatically wins. If it goes to time there is approximately a zero percent chance that any competent player on his side could lose, because my Horn was doomed from just based on the squad breakdown and his Han can then just run away. I am sure that this is not the only matchup in which the winner is determined by if the game goes to time or not. It seems like a pretty common occurrence. Love it or hate it, this is how competitive X-wing must now be played.

I am starting to come around on Epic to be perfectly honest with you. While I prefer the standard game, Epic does have its finer points.

Does this mean Latrobe is going to get on board for Epic in OutRyder Cup II?

And requires a lot more data entry if using the software or calculation without. Adding up ship totals is a lot easier, and easily done without a calculator. Doing division and ending up with decimals is a lot more fiddly.

I guess I don't agree with the sentiment that more expensive ships are that much more greatly buffed by the current system. It's a high risk, high reward situation. If you sink 61pts. into Han and go against 8 ties. If he gets focused down first you'll lose, even if you kill 5 tie fighters. If you kill 5 tie fighters while the ties focus down the rest of the list, the ties will lose. It isn't hard for ties to focus down a falcon. 2 ship builds are dominating the meta because of engine upgraded turrets. You're taking durable, high ps, turreted ships and turning them into arc dodgers.

Yup. At least the decimals just go away though. Begone!

Even in that regard I don't think it was an automatic win for him. It's one turreted YT with engine upgrade chasing another. He's at an advantage since he moves last, but still a turreted large base ship covers a lot of area, and you did get him down to 1 hull. I don't know how many turns of chasing you had, and so if he was playing slowly that would obviously make that much harder.

It was an automatic win for him if the game went to time.

Edit: quick mental calculation, it was something around 10-12 rounds of chasing once our Han's were separated, including those first 2 rounds after Horn died. His Z's got swatted down like flies and killed during this process, but didn't really affect my Han's flight path trying to get to his Han.

It's also a problem with some small base ships though. Anything that has a lot of points wrapped up in it has the same problem. A good example are the 87 point squad and 80 point squad, which both have 2 extremely hard to kill small base ships. In Alex Davy's (extended?) interview he acknowledged that those squads surprised him. Hopefully he realizes that a large part of why those squads work is because of the partial points scoring system.

Half damage points reduces the quantization noise and so is better than what we have now, but it still has the same fundamental problems. See my examples further upthread.

It's true that small base ships can be expensive, but they're much easier to drop for those points. I think the double phantom squad at 87 is a problem for different reasons and actually highlights issues more with the phantom itself than with the scoring. What other ships/lists can simply forgo that amount of points? Has anyone done it with other ships? If the answer is no, then I don't think we can legitimately argue it's in "large part" because of the scoring system.