That's still a reasonably close game, either player could still win that, even though the 3B player will certainly be favored probably 2:1 or 3:1 odds. Even by partial points it would be only a difference of 4 points. 22+12+16+16+16 = 82 vs 12 + 3*22 = 78.

That doesn't even come close to comparing to the horror stories in the existing tournament examples.

2014 Canadian Nationals was won with a 1HP Chewbacca at time vs a full health B and a 2nd B.

I lost in a small store championship at time 38-40 with an 8HP Han vs a 1HP Han. Partial MoV would have been 93-63.

Dallas was telling me how he got knocked out of elimination rounds on time as the enemy VT-49 (might have been Han, can't remember) had about 1HP left and he just didn't have enough time to chase him down.

In all of these cases it was greater than 99% certainty who would win in an untimed match. With partial points you can never have something that egregious. Neither system is perfect, but partial points is less imperfect by about a factor of 10. Concluding that you might as well stick with the status quo because the replacement is not 100% perfect is like arguing to just keep using band-aids when the patient is hemorrhaging.

The biggest problem with partial MoV is the implementation and getting the players and TO to do the math. You either need a very clear and concise scoring sheet included with instructions, or you need some robust software and widespread distribution.

I understand your viewpoint and can certainly understand the frustration those games could cause but I think the problem is going to be more then logistical implementation. I don't think FFG lines up with your thought process philosophically based on this and thier other games. Unless forced they don't seem to be willing to give out partial points. I think FFG is very much in the "if it is still on the board it's not going to be scored camp", as opposed to just concerned with getting people to do more math.

Now admittedly I am basing this off of attitudes expressed in some of thier other products as well as how they've chosen to govern X-wing. Of course each product is different and can approach concepts different, but there are generally overlaps in how things get approached. Then again they broke rank with Armada's event rules so who knows where they are willing to go.

Overall though, on the actual subject of the thread, I am glad that they are requiring the standard round time allotted for each round. I'm sure you appreciate consistency across events for statistical analysis.

Thankfully we have a field in List Juggler to enter the round time, so for statistical tracking purposes it's fine either way. Yay sozin!

I think I will most enjoy having more time to kill BOTH IG88s in a Dual IG88 list. All my untimed games against them take sooooo long, and each time I'm behind in points with 1 IG88 left vs 2/3 supportey ships, and even when they 2/3 support ships pull off the win, I'd never have won in 60 minutes.

I think I will most enjoy having more time to kill BOTH IG88s in a Dual IG88 list. All my untimed games against them take sooooo long, and each time I'm behind in points with 1 IG88 left vs 2/3 supportey ships, and even when they 2/3 support ships pull off the win, I'd never have won in 60 minutes.

As an interesting side note, in my 2 dozen untimed vassal games with my dual IG88, when I win I am averaging 30 points more in MoV than I would if partial points were implemented. So even in longer games there is certainly a strong advantage to playing small ship lists.

@Major Juggler, how do you propose calculating partial points? I apologize if you elaborated in this thread already, I must have missed it.

As far as the partial scoring goes, I myself am not convinced that it adds enough good for the major change in game play it might provoke. I've had my fair share of games where something escapes at 1 hp, or even multiple somethings, but I think it certainly adds to the excitement and overall appeal of the game. It does suck with the extreme cases against Fat Hans and things, but it really DOES need to be 100% hashed out with a LOT of list combinations before we can really call it an improvement. If we're going to make a change, it should be the RIGHT change, with lots and lots of evidence and math that is shared with the community before a final decision is made. I know I won't be able to deny it if the math tells me it is better.

First thoughts, one case that negatively affects it:

1hp Soontir vs 2 Full HP Academy Pilots / Bandits

Depending on how partial points are calculated, this Soontir Fel did not win the match. However, no one can argue that a 1hp Soontir doesn't have a fantastic chance vs these 2 ships.

Or,

1 HP Buzzsaw Whisper vs 3 Full HP Bandits/Academy Pilots

Heck, maybe that is a general situation where partial points has a negative impact, 1 hp left, high agility arc dodgers vs 2/3, 2 attack dice ships.

Or would we consider that a way to help generics/swarms stay competitive vs the arc dodgers of the world? Idk, there are already enough tools for generics vs Soontir (blocking, tactician, range 1 forcing). If enemy Soontir is left with 1 hp vs my 2 Bandits, I've probably written off that game as a loss due to my inability to focus him down. It would suck to punish the Soontir because he made choices that, though wounding him to 1hp, put him in a favorable end game position.

I DO like that we are looking for the perfect, non-subjective, helpful for all ships solution to deciding winners based on who has the favorable end game position in a timed game. And the more I think about it and come up with corner cases, the more I realize this is no small task.

I think I will most enjoy having more time to kill BOTH IG88s in a Dual IG88 list. All my untimed games against them take sooooo long, and each time I'm behind in points with 1 IG88 left vs 2/3 supportey ships, and even when they 2/3 support ships pull off the win, I'd never have won in 60 minutes.

As an interesting side note, in my 2 dozen untimed vassal games with my dual IG88, when I win I am averaging 30 points more in MoV than I would if partial points were implemented. So even in longer games there is certainly a strong advantage to playing small ship lists.

You've got my attention....

I think the simplest and most eloquent answer to a partial points system is simply to score 50% of the points for ships which are MORE than 50% damage. This evens the playing field, whilst still making the tactic of 'fleeing' with key ships to cling onto points a perfectly viable part of the game. It keeps the math simple for TO's and adds about 30 seconds of time onto calculating he scores at the end, which is pretty irrelevant as most players tend to have one eye on the score thought the game anyway so it's usually already worked out when time is called.

I can't see an example above either for it against partial points whereby the player with the most likely path to victory at time isn't declared the winner under this system.

You either need a very clear and concise scoring sheet included with instructions, or you need some robust software and widespread distribution.

How about a cell phone with a calculator? Take the cost of the ship, divide the cost by the total durability (hull+shields), multiply that number by the durability lost to give the opposing player their partial score.

I wouldn't factor in any ordnance costs unless the ship was destroyed. No need to make ordnance even worse.

I think the simplest and most eloquent answer to a partial points system is simply to score 50% of the points for ships which are MORE than 50% damage. This evens the playing field, whilst still making the tactic of 'fleeing' with key ships to cling onto points a perfectly viable part of the game. It keeps the math simple for TO's and adds about 30 seconds of time onto calculating he scores at the end, which is pretty irrelevant as most players tend to have one eye on the score thought the game anyway so it's usually already worked out when time is called.

I can't see an example above either for it against partial points whereby the player with the most likely path to victory at time isn't declared the winner under this system.

A simple solution for sure. Would that be enough for players wanting partial points though? Wouldn't they want points for each shield and hull point removed?

I'm not opposing partial points it would just have to be implemented in a balanced way. It would certainly change the game completely.

@Major Juggler, how do you propose calculating partial points? I apologize if you elaborated in this thread already, I must have missed it.

As far as the partial scoring goes, I myself am not convinced that it adds enough good for the major change in game play it might provoke. I've had my fair share of games where something escapes at 1 hp, or even multiple somethings, but I think it certainly adds to the excitement and overall appeal of the game. It does suck with the extreme cases against Fat Hans and things, but it really DOES need to be 100% hashed out with a LOT of list combinations before we can really call it an improvement. If we're going to make a change, it should be the RIGHT change, with lots and lots of evidence and math that is shared with the community before a final decision is made. I know I won't be able to deny it if the math tells me it is better.

I had talked about it on NOVA episode #19, and we had a rather spirited discussion about it later here:

The math is actually trivial if you have a calculator, but you need a scoring sheet to mark down the starting HP, ending HP, cost, and partial points destroyed for each ship for each player for each round. I made a double sided 8.5x11 that can score 6 rounds, with space for an example, so I know that it can be done.

Using my SC game as an example:

Player A (me):

Phat Han: 8/13HP, 60 points = 60*5/13 = 23.08 --> 23

Corran Horn: 0/5HP, 40 points = 40 points.

Total for player B: 63 points

Player B (SC winner):

Tala #1: 0/4 HP, 19 points = 19 points

Tala #2: 0/4 HP, 19 points = 19 points

Fat Han: 1/13HP, 62 points: 62*12/13 = 57.2 --> 57

Total for player A: 95 points

Actual game score: 40-38, Player B gets a modified win.

In this example, the only reason that he won, is because his Falcon was 2 points more. I talked about this on the thread, where his Han had VI/Luke/EU, so there was no physical way to keep my Corran Horn alive. Once the squads were selected all he had to do was kill my Horn (inevitable given the upgrades), then keep his Han alive to time. Once my Horn was killed, his entire strategy changed to running away with his Han to completely disengage from the fight. The two rounds directly following Corran's death were also extremely slow on his part - at least 25 minutes in total. If I did not already know that he was a slower player, then I probably would have called the TO over on slow play, but he was taking a long time to deliberate on how to navigate Han through an asteroid field that I had corralled him into. We talked about it about a few rounds after my Horn died, and he said that the only way he could win is to run away with his Han and win on time, so he did slightly speed up his play after that to try and make it more "fair". Unfortunately the damage had already been done. Regardless if he intended it as slow play or not, he ended up winning the game because he ran out the clock setting dials and taking a long time to make decisions in combat.

The tournament rule book states that slow play is illegal, but it gives absolutely zero guidance or rules on what defines slow play, so it is fundamentally not enforceable. As the tournament scene continues to become more competitive, I fully expect that more "win at all costs" players will creep into the game, and will intentionally try and abuse slow play when it is to their advantage. 75 minute rounds do not fully address the issue. You can analyze the point breakdowns before the match starts, and then if it is to your advantage, you can play the entire game slower from the first round.

The argument that "games should be able to finish in 60 minutes let alone 75" is irrelevant if one player wants the game to go to time from the start. In the two very small store championships I went to, 75 minute rounds were used and 8 of the 15 games went to time. Most of these games went to time because many of the players were new, but the point is that if a new player can inadvertently make a game go to time in 75 minutes, then an experienced player can absolutely do the same thing by playing slower the entire game. There are some matchups where it is obvious which player wants the game to go to time, so in this case it strongly encourages that player to play slower. You can't arbitrarily call someone on slow playing if they play slow the entire game regardless of their experience level. There is no rule that experienced players have to play faster than newer players.

TL;DR: As the game becomes more popular and "prestigious" the prevalence of "win at all cost" type of players will increase. Under the current scoring system, it is inevitable that intentional slow playing and winning on time will become a central aspect to high-level tournament play.

I think I will most enjoy having more time to kill BOTH IG88s in a Dual IG88 list. All my untimed games against them take sooooo long, and each time I'm behind in points with 1 IG88 left vs 2/3 supportey ships, and even when they 2/3 support ships pull off the win, I'd never have won in 60 minutes.

As an interesting side note, in my 2 dozen untimed vassal games with my dual IG88, when I win I am averaging 30 points more in MoV than I would if partial points were implemented. So even in longer games there is certainly a strong advantage to playing small ship lists.

You've got my attention....

It amounts to having about 5HP removed from my ships without them dying, in each game that I win. That is very normal in either a 100-0 or 100-50 win.

I think the simplest and most eloquent answer to a partial points system is simply to score 50% of the points for ships which are MORE than 50% damage. This evens the playing field, whilst still making the tactic of 'fleeing' with key ships to cling onto points a perfectly viable part of the game. It keeps the math simple for TO's and adds about 30 seconds of time onto calculating he scores at the end, which is pretty irrelevant as most players tend to have one eye on the score thought the game anyway so it's usually already worked out when time is called.

I can't see an example above either for it against partial points whereby the player with the most likely path to victory at time isn't declared the winner under this system.

That was my initial thought too, but after analyzing the numbers and looking at matchups I realized that all it does is move the goal post - the fundamental problem still remains. (See longer discussion in above linked post).

Edit: as an example, if the game had ended with 6HP or less on my Han vs 1 HP on his Han, then he still would have won on partial points using half-points. This is not an uncommon scenario.

While I agree the event rules are to vague in regards to stalling, you did yourself no favors by not calling the TO over in the game above. Having alot of background in systems with just as vague stalling rules I have found just the willingness to get a TO involved prevents most cases of it.

While I agree the event rules are to vague in regards to stalling, you did yourself no favors by not calling the TO over in the game above. Having alot of background in systems with just as vague stalling rules I have found just the willingness to get a TO involved prevents most cases of it.

And say what exactly? Over half of this player's games in 2 tournaments went to time anyway at 75 minutes, he just generally plays slow. This is the problem with the rules. How do you define slow play? There is no way, and it would not have changed the outcome. It would have delayed the game another 5 minutes explaining the situation and trying to figure out how to resolve it.

While I agree the event rules are to vague in regards to stalling, you did yourself no favors by not calling the TO over in the game above. Having alot of background in systems with just as vague stalling rules I have found just the willingness to get a TO involved prevents most cases of it.

I completely agree with Juggler; the only way to enforce rules against slow play are to actually turn time into a resource that each player has [X] amount of, so they only run down their own clock on their turn. Run out of time, lose points (or, perhaps, the entire game). The rules governing slow play for X Wing - and most tabletop games, honestly - are entirely too subjective to be effectively enforced.

Overall I also think the "untimed standard" is inappropriate. Games are timed afterall, your goal is to outscore your opponent in that time limit. Not unlike a boxing match. They don't score them based on who would win if the fight went on, they score them based on who did more during the rounds. I actually think even finals should be timed as I think it's important to have a consistent event standard then change it once you get to the finish.

Untimed is the default mode for X-Wing; tournaments are only on a timer due to the logistical limitations of the event. It's not realistically possible to have some matches drag on for 2 or 3 hours, as sometimes happens, extending the event until God knows when. If it were possible, the matches wouldn't be timed - so player strategies that hinge on abuse of event limitations start running aground of territory the game hasn't been designed to accommodate. The point cost of the Falcon and it's fat upgrades, for example, do not reflect the ship's added benefit of being able to burn away an hour by never taking an engagement (because such play would be nonsense in a conventional setting).

I also think the finals should run on a 75 minute timer, because one bad run of said finals would certainly be the last time FFG ran with an all-or-nothing kill system (and I think I might quite enjoy the schadenfreude of watching the designers gaze onward in embarrassment as a list ran passively around the board to time and the commentators struggle to find ways to make the match watchable in any way).

I completely agree with Juggler; the only way to enforce rules against slow play are to actually turn time into a resource that each player has [X] amount of, so they only run down their own clock on their turn.

Impossible, and not just because of the logistics involved in getting every event, everywhere the tools required for this.

2) We activate my clock when I declare the attack, his after I roll my dice so he can decide how to modify them, mine after he decides how to modify them so I can decide how to modify them, his to roll his dice, mine to decide how to modify them, his so he can decide how to modify them, and then presumably it stays with him while he deals the damage cards. That's six clock changes for one attack, which we then have to repeat 2-16 times per round. Ridiculous.

Plus, who's time gets eaten into when figuring out which ship is next to attack? And what about the planning phase; do the players now take turns setting their dials, or do both clocks run, or does a third clock with a "general" amount of time run?

The game is not set up to operate with individual clocks. We don't have individual turns; both players are actively involved in the play the vast majority of the time. People really need to get over the notion.

I completely agree with Juggler; the only way to enforce rules against slow play are to actually turn time into a resource that each player has [X] amount of, so they only run down their own clock on their turn.

Impossible, and not just because of the logistics involved in getting every event, everywhere the tools required for this.

Let's say I've just declared an attack. Now either one of two things will happen:

1) The opponent gets to eat into my time while deciding whether or not to modify dice. So open to abuse it's not funny.

2) We activate my clock when I declare the attack, his after I roll my dice so he can decide how to modify them, mine after he decides how to modify them so I can decide how to modify them, his to roll his dice, mine to decide how to modify them, his so he can decide how to modify them, and then presumably it stays with him while he deals the damage cards. That's six clock changes for one attack, which we then have to repeat 2-16 times per round. Ridiculous.

Plus, who's time gets eaten into when figuring out which ship is next to attack? And what about the planning phase; do the players now take turns setting their dials, or do both clocks run, or does a third clock with a "general" amount of time run?

The game is not set up to operate with individual clocks. We don't have individual turns; both players are actively involved in the play the vast majority of the time. People really need to get over the notion.

I didn't propose actually adding clocks to the game; I was just noting that in a game that cannot support clocks / does not support clocks, slow rolling is impossible to enforce rules against.

EDIT: Also, I think you may be over-estimating / exaggerating the difficulty of adding clocks to the game.

I completely agree with Juggler; the only way to enforce rules against slow play are to actually turn time into a resource that each player has [X] amount of, so they only run down their own clock on their turn. Run out of time, lose points (or, perhaps, the entire game). The rules governing slow play for X Wing - and most tabletop games, honestly - are entirely too subjective to be effectively enforced.

Right, I'll agree with that.

Impossible, and not just because of the logistics involved in getting every event, everywhere the tools required for this.

The game is not set up to operate with individual clocks. We don't have individual turns; both players are actively involved in the play the vast majority of the time. People really need to get over the notion.

l absolutely also agree with that too. A chess clock really is not feasible for X-wing either logistically or thematically with the spirit of the game.

I didn't propose actually adding clocks to the game; I was just noting that in a game that cannot support clocks / does not support clocks, slow rolling is impossible to enforce rules against.

OK, I guess we are all on the same page.

I think the conclusion is that the status quo will remain unless partial points are implemented. If partial points are not implemented then it will inevitably eventually lead to WAAC players "tainting" tournament play by regularly slow playing when it is to their advantage, and forcing wins on time.

It will be interesting to see how Regionals 2015 plays out though. Hopefully everyone uses Cryodex and uploads their list results to List Juggler, and we get the full per-match breakdowns.

I completely agree with Juggler; the only way to enforce rules against slow play are to actually turn time into a resource that each player has [X] amount of, so they only run down their own clock on their turn. Run out of time, lose points (or, perhaps, the entire game). The rules governing slow play for X Wing - and most tabletop games, honestly - are entirely too subjective to be effectively enforced.

why not flip it so you encourage and reward quick aggressive play rather than penalise slow play with what are admittedly vague, subjective, and potentially unenforceable slow play rules

Like giving bonus MOV points for tabling your opponent within the time limit for example?

@Majorjuggler

The waac attitude will be there no matter of the rules. And the partial point system will just spawn lists that dont focus on killing ships but making some half decided manouvers and taking pot shots just to score points.

I dont have any problem with the current scoring system or the proposed one. It wont change waac attitude and those players will just adapt. It will change the name of the topic from the problems with x scoring system to the problems with the y scoring system. If we are talking about seasonal changes just to shake things up i am all for it tough.

I went to a tournament this weekend there was 4:30 left on the clock and we had both destroyed a ship but my ship was worth 4 more points than his ship. I kindly asked my opponent if he could speed up his move a little and he said sure but it still took him 2:30 to decide on one movement. Needless to say we only ended up getting 2 moves in and I lost by 4 points.

My hope for a solution to this almost impossible topic is the fact that FFG has stated that they are working on an official TO program as well as an Official software for their competitive games. I love Cryodex and I have run many tournaments as well as participated in many throughout 4 states and I can say that until FFG debuts a fix and makes it OFFICIAL that solving this issue will be nigh impossible. Its hard enough just getting people to show up on time for events, bring copies of their list already made out, etc., etc. Again, I say that with tournament experience throughout 4 states worth of meta, not just my local events.

OK, I already addressed this exact point earlier:

Neither system is perfect, but partial points is less imperfect by about a factor of 10. Concluding that you might as well stick with the status quo because the replacement is not 100% perfect is like arguing to just keep using band-aids when the patient is hemorrhaging.

The biggest problem with partial MoV is the implementation and getting the players and TO to do the math. You either need a very clear and concise scoring sheet included with instructions, or you need some robust software and widespread distribution.

So let me put it another way.

The fact that WAAC players will always exist is precisely the reason that you want to tighten up the loopholes to prevent abuse as much as possible.

Lets say that "System A" allows for 40-60 points of abuse, and "System B" allows for 5-10 points of abuse. All else being equal, "System B" is far superior. You are saying that since WAAC will always be present, and since they could abuse System B, you might as well raise the white flag and just let them abuse the worse System A anyway.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense to me.

@Majorjuggler

The waac attitude will be there no matter of the rules. And the partial point system will just spawn lists that dont focus on killing ships but making some half decided manouvers and taking pot shots just to score points.

I dont have any problem with the current scoring system or the proposed one. It wont change waac attitude and those players will just adapt. It will change the name of the topic from the problems with x scoring system to the problems with the y scoring system. If we are talking about seasonal changes just to shake things up i am all for it tough.

The aim isn't to change the attitude, but to make the game less abusable by those who carry said attitude (honestly, those players will wash out of the game's competitive scene anyway; they're very rarely a permanent fixture in any scene with forward momentum).

And taking random pot shots is a terrible way to play, regardless of the point system. If you aren't taking opposing guns off of the table and just distributing damage around, you will lose.

I really don't think partial points is a necessity in our game. Yes, there are builds that have an MOV advantage over other builds, just as there are builds with a firepower advantage over other builds, just as some builds have more HP over others. Its just another aspect to building and flying your squad that you need to plan for.

There is no squad that is an auto-win against any other competitive squad in this game. And by competitive, I mean not 5 HWK's. You still need to fly the ships around the table, and chuck dice. Let's stop pretending that this game is won and lost based on list building alone, and least of all, on speed of play.

If you know you are facing an MOV mismatch, then adjust your tactics to deal with that particular ship early in the game. Make a plan, and execute as best you can.

Sometimes, you will still be out flown. Sometimes, you will have bad dice luck. Sometimes, both you and your opponent will realize that someone needs to run away to win.

This game is great because it challenges you to mitigate each of these obstacles. 75 minutes is a very reasonable time limit that honestly gives most players an opportunity to destroy any squad.

Eliminating 60 minute rounds and giving some partial credit to mitigate bloated "fat" ships would both be welcome changes. Went 3-3 at tourney this weekend in 60 minute rounds, but would have been 5-1 with 15 more minutes OR partial credit for large ships, as one loss was to a Han (that Soontir would have finished with a few more rounds) and Chewbacca/Leebo (ditto). The Chewbacca (with Leebo) list ran away the entire game and won by shooting down 2 TIEs as I had to suicide them into his list later in the rounds. Both Leebo and Chewbacca were nearly dead, but I got zero MOV for it.

60 minute rounds are easy to eliminate; finding an easy to execute/track way to give partial credit is a little more of a challenge. It can be done, but needs to be so simple it can be done in the 30 seconds between rounds.