"If both players destroy an identical number of squad points, each player receives a Margin of Victory of 100 points."

Does anyone have any background on why this got added? How often is it going to matter? It's quite a corner case for players to lose the same number of points but not get 100 MoVs.

If both players have the same TPL (Total Points Lost -- my term) and neither lost all their ships, they'll both get an MoV of 100 naturally.

If both players have the same TPL and both lost all their ships, they're both considered to have lost 100 points and would still both get MoVs of 100 under existing rules. (They would have even without the "wiped = 100 TPL" rule, BTW.)

That leaves only two cases I can think of where this new exception matters.

Case One is both players losing the same total point value, yet only one of them losing all his ships. Which means one of them was flying, at most, 88 points of ships. So this new rule may have been prompted by the 86-pt Whisper/Echo list I've heard nasty things about.

Case Two is a well-timed concession. Are you about to suffer a major attack on your last ship, or on any ship on the final round due to time? Quick! If you both have the same current TPL, give up. You'll still lose, but you'll save your MoV a minor hit (and hurt your opponent's).

I don't expect the second case to be abused. It's too conditional. Still, all I see about this new exception is wrinkles and corner cases. Why did FFG think it was necessary?

You're overthinking this. It's not a rule change, just something added to clarify what I would assume to be a common question/point of confusion.

In both of your proposed examples, the losing player has lost all his ships, and therefore the winner gets rewarded as if he had killed a full 100 point squad.

I think it's designed to clarify that if I have a 99-point list and you have 100, but we both destroy 36 points worth of ships, we dra at 100 MOV. I'm familiar with a least a few anecdotal reports of games like that being called modified wins.

Case Two is a well-timed concession. Are you about to suffer a major attack on your last ship, or on any ship on the final round due to time? Quick! If you both have the same current TPL, give up. You'll still lose, but you'll save your MoV a minor hit (and hurt your opponent's).

That's not how concessions work.

If you concede, you basically self-destruct all your remaining ships.

Case Two is a well-timed concession. Are you about to suffer a major attack on your last ship, or on any ship on the final round due to time? Quick! If you both have the same current TPL, give up. You'll still lose, but you'll save your MoV a minor hit (and hurt your opponent's).

That's not how concessions work.

If you concede, you basically self-destruct all your remaining ships.

This.

Although I would argue there should be an "end the game now with the points we currently have on the board" option. Have even done so in previous threads. The crazy thing about such an idea is that someone could give up the win but still have a MoV lead but many find that outcome to be an abomination. Of course this would be a second type of concession option that your opponent would not need to accept should it be offered.

Although I would argue there should be an "end the game now with the points we currently have on the board" option. Have even done so in previous threads. The crazy thing about such an idea is that someone could give up the win but still have a MoV lead but many find that outcome to be an abomination. Of course this would be a second type of concession option that your opponent would not need to accept should it be offered.

I'm curious as to why you would find this necessary?

Seems like it would just complicate things as well as open the door to weird point fixing shenanigans.

Maybe I'm 4-0 and just need a certain MoV to guarantee my place in top 8, and my opponent is 3-1 and needs a win to have a chance at top 8. I could take the lead early, offer to end it and both my opponent and I are happy! Too bad for the guy at the other table who needs either me to have a crappy MoV or my opponent would lose so he can get into top 8.

Although I would argue there should be an "end the game now with the points we currently have on the board" option. Have even done so in previous threads. The crazy thing about such an idea is that someone could give up the win but still have a MoV lead but many find that outcome to be an abomination. Of course this would be a second type of concession option that your opponent would not need to accept should it be offered.

I'm curious as to why you would find this necessary?

...

You could see it as colluding although I'm seeing it more as a way to get some rest in instead of a person needing to finish playing things out to save their points. I see this as the option for those games when it may be pretty clear who is going to win but completely finishing off the loser is just going to be a pain that neither side really wants to play out but the underdog doesn't want to give up those final points. In many ways I see it as a low pressure way to end a game early.

I'd also see this 'status quo' consolation as something a player could ask for without being so presumptuous as asking an opponent for what I call a 'full' consolation. I tend to think of this type of ending as a mutual withdrawal from the field.

I know this idea has been talked about before in a previous thread.

Um, if I've got 12 guns pointing at your 1 hit point Falcon and you could "end the game with the points we have on the table," before I can shoot, there would be no point in even playing.

Um, if I've got 12 guns pointing at your 1 hit point Falcon and you could "end the game with the points we have on the table," before I can shoot, there would be no point in even playing.

I can't argue with that. That's why a partial concession would need to be offered and accepted where accepting a full concession is a no brainer.

Now how about a hypothetical Fat ORS vs. an Autothruster A-Wing where basically neither side is likely to be able to kill the other.

Now how about a hypothetical Fat ORS vs. an Autothruster A-Wing where basically neither side is likely to be able to kill the other.

You came to a tourney and paid to play X-Wing, play it out. All either side needs is one unexpected maneuver or 1 really lucky shot to put some damage one the enemy.

I doubt there's any scenario where both sodes have 0% chance pf putting a single damage on the opponent. In your example, A-Wing needs to get into range 1 to roll 3 dice to be able to punch through the C3P0 and evade token, and the ORS needs to get the A-Wing in arc (unexpected K-Turn?) or into range 1 to roll 3 dice and punch through the Autothrusters and evade token.

I think it's designed to clarify that if I have a 99-point list and you have 100, but we both destroy 36 points worth of ships, we dra at 100 MOV. I'm familiar with a least a few anecdotal reports of games like that being called modified wins.

That could be the thing I'm missing, which would mean the new sentence isn't a new, higher-priority exception but rather just clarifying what happens in one particular case.

I still wish the FAQ weren't worded so it could be argued either way.

I think it's designed to clarify that if I have a 99-point list and you have 100, but we both destroy 36 points worth of ships, we dra at 100 MOV. I'm familiar with a least a few anecdotal reports of games like that being called modified wins.

That could be the thing I'm missing, which would mean the new sentence isn't a new, higher-priority exception but rather just clarifying what happens in one particular case.

I still wish the FAQ weren't worded so it could be argued either way.

I don't really see how it can be argued as anything other than a clarification?

Both examples you gave in OP were already covered in the rules.

All of this "concession for MoV" weirdness just stinks of collusion. You play the game fully, without reservations or undue delays, until either one side is defeated, or time is called.

The only reason I can see to add the new sentence is because the instructions for calculating MoV tell you what to do if you destroyed either more points or less points than your opponent did but gave no guidance as to what should be done if you scored the same. The placement of the new sentence is odd. It should have been before the example instead of wedged in between the two scoring exceptions.

It should have read like this:

"Margin of Victory
At the end of each match, the player who has destroyed more squad points adds the amount by which his score exceeds his opponent’s score to 100 and records it on his score sheet. The player who has destroyed fewer squad points subtracts the same amount from 100 and records it on his score sheet. If both players destroy an identical number of squad points, each player receives a Margin of Victory of 100 points.

End of match example: Anakin wins the game, destroying 53 squad points of his opponent’s ships. Anakin’s opponent, Biggs, has destroyed 24 points of Anakin’s ships. Anakin wins by 29 points, which he adds to 100 for a margin of 129. Biggs loses by 29 points, which he subtracts from 100 for a margin of 71.

If a player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, his opponent’s squad is worth 100 squad points, even if it is worth fewer squad points to begin with. If a player concedes the match, treat all of his remaining ships as destroyed."