you'd be happy to chase a ship around the board even killing one and they kill nothing of yours and you lose?

I didn't lose nothing, I lost half a Falcon. And the game sounds boring as hell, but that's a problem under any scoring system.

Under the current rules this kind of feat would be near impossible to pull of as you would have to stay engaged with the Z's to kill of 1 or 2 while maintaining the integrity of your ships. With a Partial Point System this would become more frequent and the frustration of playing competitive games would drive people away from it.

I do have to say that if your only argument for such a Partial Point System needs extreme examples to justify it, you may need to reconsider if that is really what you want.

Lets add theme to your example. Lets say the whole time Han is fighting off the swarm C-3PO is feverishly working to fix the hyper drive. When the round ends is when the Hyper Drive is fixed and Han escapes. Even though he was praying " hear me girl, hold together" the jump to light speed allots him time to repair the Falcon back to full glory. In the exchange he managed to take out a few ties. This sounds like a win to me for the Falcon.

Cons have already been mentioned.

Here is a system I recommended on EP20: of Nova. It's based on warhammer and 40k and heroclix tournaments I have been hosted and been too. Warning some high school math is needed.

EP:20 logic

Take the cost of the ship / Add(hull+shields+ upgrades which increase them) and Round down. We'll call this Damage Value These are points you earn for each point of damage enemy ships have on them at the end of the game. This means if he heals a shield with R2 or some other method you won't get the points. Warhammer Fantasy, 40k and many other games have been doing this for years now. This is one the main ways to stop 2 ship meta and bring balance back to the game.

Examples:

Academy Tie Fighter 12 points, 3 hull, 0 shields. This means at the end of the game 12/(3+0) = 4 Damage Value

Obsidian Tie Fighter 17 points , 3 hull, 0 shields, +1 Shield Upgrade. This means you earn 4 mov points for each damage caused 17/(3+1)=4.25 Rounded down to 4 Damage Value

Soontir Fel 33 points, 3 Hull, +1 Hull Upgrade, Push the Limit. This means you earn 8 mov points for each damage caused. 33/(3+1)=8.25 Round down to 8 Damage Value

If people cannot do this type of simple math, I'm not sure they should be playing this game. I don't understand why some people think this math is so hard to use

Ton's of games use this for their tournaments and it makes sense.

Sure you will have cases where people run away so you don't get full points, but that happens now. At least you get some type of rewards for 60 minutes of gaming, but you lost because his big ship had one hull left on it. In some cases we have to drive 4 hours to play, and it's so frustrating when people run away, so you cannot have a chance to win.

At the end of the games, players must submit one battle sheet, which has the points they earned and both players must signed. Just like Warhammer and other games.

My Two Cents:

eagletsi

Carcassonne has a pretty complex scoring system at the end, and I hear that game may be somewhat popular in some places.

Cons have already been mentioned.

Here is a system I recommended on EP20: of Nova. It's based on warhammer and 40k and heroclix tournaments I have been hosted and been too. Warning some high school math is needed.

EP:20 logic

Take the cost of the ship / Add(hull+shields+ upgrades which increase them) and Round down. We'll call this Damage Value These are points you earn for each point of damage enemy ships have on them at the end of the game. This means if he heals a shield with R2 or some other method you won't get the points. Warhammer Fantasy, 40k and many other games have been doing this for years now. This is one the main ways to stop 2 ship meta and bring balance back to the game.

Examples:

Academy Tie Fighter 12 points, 3 hull, 0 shields. This means at the end of the game 12/(3+0) = 4 Damage Value

Obsidian Tie Fighter 17 points , 3 hull, 0 shields, +1 Shield Upgrade. This means you earn 4 mov points for each damage caused 17/(3+1)=4.25 Rounded down to 4 Damage Value

Soontir Fel 33 points, 3 Hull, +1 Hull Upgrade, Push the Limit. This means you earn 8 mov points for each damage caused. 33/(3+1)=8.25 Round down to 8 Damage Value

If people cannot do this type of simple math, I'm not sure they should be playing this game. I don't understand why some people think this math is so hard to use

Ton's of games use this for their tournaments and it makes sense.

Sure you will have cases where people run away so you don't get full points, but that happens now. At least you get some type of rewards for 60 minutes of gaming, but you lost because his big ship had one hull left on it. In some cases we have to drive 4 hours to play, and it's so frustrating when people run away, so you cannot have a chance to win.

At the end of the games, players must submit one battle sheet, which has the points they earned and both players must signed. Just like Warhammer and other games.

My Two Cents:

eagletsi

I really like this system that you created, and it's not hard to implement. I don't think that partial points is the solution though.

I think that regardless of the approach, there will be popular builds that emerge that will game the system. Currently, Fat Han and BBBBZ both take advantage of finite match length and full-kill MoV scoring. If partial scoring were implemented, I imagine builds like stealth device Serissu swarms would become king.

I have a difficult time buying the argument that a slight increase in post-game tabulation makes it too difficult to implement.

On the FFG Deck List, you simply add two rows after the total cost: total health and points per health lost. This should be as easy as dividing the total points by the total health, and throwing away the remainder. Let's stick with the M3A as it could be a very strong ship in the partial points system. Cartel Spicer+Stealth is 5 points per point of damage done to the 17 cost ship. Serissu+PTL+Stealth is 8.

Another piece of paper makes the end of round math easier by clearly spelling everything out. I can design this in 5 minutes as well. Everything goes back to normal from there. If players have the ability to add up their point total, they should be capable of adding up their partial score as well.

For me, the biggest bonus of the partial points system is that it gives the players who may not be as good at the game more points. Thinking of my last store championship, instead of my friend in last place getting two 100-0 games against him, he would have destroyed 50 of Han in 1, and 40 of Han in the next. Meanwhile the championship winner who only didn't destroy 2 Zs all day and didn't lose a ship would have gone from 576 (or whatever) to probably somewhere around 500. Still solidly in first place, but not quite as dominant.

tl;dr - giving newer/less experienced players more numbers to help them feel better is the biggest upside of the partial points system.

I would just to something simple. Half points (round up) if the ship is half dead (round up).

Academy Tie:

0 HP left - 12

1 HP left - 6

2-3 HP left - 0

Academy Tie w/ Hull Upgrade:

0 HP left - 15

1-2 HP left - 8

3-4 HP left - 0

It's worth noting that the proponents for partial points often include the caveat that they would only want it implemented if the tournament software could handle the math for TOs in a more or less idiot-proof fashion.

You're not going to have to do scary math stuff at the end of a match with a reasonably well supported partial points system.

I think the "math is too hard" argument isn't valid. There's very easy ways to go about this. Does partial points solve the problem or just switch it for some other problem, that question is still unanswered.

Osoroshii's thoughts on this are well thought, in my opinion he laid out the "other problems" that could occur with partial points. Current rules or partial points...neither will be perfect and there will be players that use either to their advantage with out breaking a single rule. At least right now the points values are based on the current scoring system.

Personally I don't think the game needs partial points, I would not stop playing if they were adopted in a sensible way, but I think the issue is more of people not being able to play the game quickly. I'm not talking about deliberate slow-playing (something that should be anathema to every player), people may simply need to play faster.

you'd be happy to chase a ship around the board even killing one and they kill nothing of yours and you lose?

I didn't lose nothing, I lost half a Falcon. And the game sounds boring as hell, but that's a problem under any scoring system.

Under the current rules this kind of feat would be near impossible to pull of as you would have to stay engaged with the Z's to kill of 1 or 2 while maintaining the integrity of your ships. With a Partial Point System this would become more frequent and the frustration of playing competitive games would drive people away from it.

Nothing changed about the game, just the scoring. How is it easier to achieve the psition you're talking about under a different scoring system?

I do have to say that if your only argument for such a Partial Point System needs extreme examples to justify it, you may need to reconsider if that is really what you want.

Read my post again:

Of course real games are almost never that clear-cut. But overall, the current tournament scoring has the effect of pushing tournament players toward lists that are smaller and have better defenses, because those lists lose MoV more slowly. Over time, then, small defensive lists help you stay at the top of your score group.

The negative consequences are happening now, in every tournament game. The extreme example is easy to understand and it's fairly clear why it doesn't feel fair; understanding why BBBBZ results in better MoV than 8x TIEs is more complicated, but I can explain it if you need me to.

Lets add theme to your example.

Let's not, since it's completely irrelevant to tournament scoring.

you'd be happy to chase a ship around the board even killing one and they kill nothing of yours and you lose?

I didn't lose nothing, I lost half a Falcon. And the game sounds boring as hell, but that's a problem under any scoring system.

Under the current rules this kind of feat would be near impossible to pull of as you would have to stay engaged with the Z's to kill of 1 or 2 while maintaining the integrity of your ships. With a Partial Point System this would become more frequent and the frustration of playing competitive games would drive people away from it.

I do have to say that if your only argument for such a Partial Point System needs extreme examples to justify it, you may need to reconsider if that is really what you want.

Lets add theme to your example. Lets say the whole time Han is fighting off the swarm C-3PO is feverishly working to fix the hyper drive. When the round ends is when the Hyper Drive is fixed and Han escapes. Even though he was praying " hear me girl, hold together" the jump to light speed allots him time to repair the Falcon back to full glory. In the exchange he managed to take out a few ties. This sounds like a win to me for the Falcon.

That in game fluff example works if we assume Han was on a job requiring him to get away from the Ties. But if his mission was to destroy those Ties, he failed that mission.

Without ever thinking through precisely how it would affect game play I always thought the partial point / point per hit point system would be the most fair.

Osoroshii has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would be horrible to switch to that system.

Yes there are some flaws (and if not flaws, imperfections) but the alternative would create far more negatives than what we currently have.

Great topic. Thanks for posting.

this would all be much simpler if we could all make a gentleman's agreement to not fly the biggest pain-in-the-ass ships in the game

Under the current rules this kind of feat would be near impossible to pull of as you would have to stay engaged with the Z's to kill of 1 or 2 while maintaining the integrity of your ships. With a Partial Point System this would become more frequent and the frustration of playing competitive games would drive people away from it.

I do have to say that if your only argument for such a Partial Point System needs extreme examples to justify it, you may need to reconsider if that is really what you want.

Lets add theme to your example. Lets say the whole time Han is fighting off the swarm C-3PO is feverishly working to fix the hyper drive. When the round ends is when the Hyper Drive is fixed and Han escapes. Even though he was praying " hear me girl, hold together" the jump to light speed allots him time to repair the Falcon back to full glory. In the exchange he managed to take out a few ties. This sounds like a win to me for the Falcon.

Those aren't 'extreme examples': there are so many instances of fat ships surviving to time, in fact, and claiming MoV-only victories (i.e. the odds would be incredibly against their favor if the match did not have a time limit) that the top bracket of players has switched to using fat ships, and slow play to deny rounds of shooting is becoming an issue.

In your own example, your Falcon lost half of it's hit points in a bad exchange, and you lost the game. How is this unreasonable? It's also unlikely that the A-Wings would be able to somehow escape the Falcon, which can move much faster and shoot in a 360 arc, but whatever: the point is that you made a bad call (joust the A Wing swarm) and were rightly punished for it. The fact that a model wasn't actually removed from the table seems to me to be a poor metric for how well the game is going for you.

The thematic excuses are frankly nonsense. It's a competitive event, not a fluffy campaign setting.

Paring crits, ships are 100% effective until the they are destroyed. Why should you get points for a ship that is still in the fight and doing damage?

Another big con I can think of for this would be two items: Hull upgrade and shield upgrade. Even if there is software to handle these things, asking players and TO's to keep track of items like that is going to complicate the scoring just from a keeping-track-of standpoint.

Paring crits, ships are 100% effective until the they are destroyed. Why should you get points for a ship that is still in the fight and doing damage?

Because such a system rewards me for engaging and shooting your stuff - or at least moreso than an all-or-nothing system that only cares about whether my hyper defensive ships survived. That would be why I should get partial points for damage.

Also because your ship with one hull on it that is 'still in the fight' wouldn't be next turn, but oh wait the game went to time because you slow rolled me. 'Good game'.

I would just to something simple. Half points (round up) if the ship is half dead (round up).

Academy Tie:

0 HP left - 12

1 HP left - 6

2-3 HP left - 0

Academy Tie w/ Hull Upgrade:

0 HP left - 15

1-2 HP left - 8

3-4 HP left - 0

This isn't the best. But I like because it will help during the close games for sure. anything is better than nothing.

Someone may have already had this idea I am not sure. Determine the % of damage on a ship based on hull and shields. Use that % to determine the points awarded for damage. One person used a Han of 48 and 3 ties for 36. Han under the present system wins although he is about to die possibly. Say the Han had one hit point(hull)left. Han has 13 hits to start, so he at this point is 92% damaged. So the opposing player receives 92% of Hans value or 44 points giving the tie player 96 points for ships destroyed or damaged.In return the Han player receives nothing if the ties are undamaged and wins by a 96 to 64 score..

I think partial points are promising but am not convinced a switch is actually necessary.

My biggest concern is this: any scoring system can be gamed, and any system will likely have seen or unforeseen second and third order effects, just different ones from the current system. What are those effects for partial points? Math at wrap up certainly. The issue of how to deal with regenerating points from R2D2, Chewbacca, or other mechanisms is another (having fought Corran to zero shields only to have him restore to full; I'd like that addressed). Unequal point value per ship is another. What else could we find?

As far as slow play: partial points is neither a cure nor a future symptom. Any timed game that uses score that does not increase score or realize its objective by completing quickly is at risk of slow play. Hence "delay of game" penalties in games like football. Partial points would just change the margin at which this tactic is valuable, but would not eliminate the tactic. IMO this is not egregious enough in X-wing to need anything beyond a TO call at this point, and shouldn't have bearing on a partial point scoring system.

Paring crits, ships are 100% effective until the they are destroyed. Why should you get points for a ship that is still in the fight and doing damage?

Because such a system rewards me for engaging and shooting your stuff - or at least moreso than an all-or-nothing system that only cares about whether my hyper defensive ships survived. That would be why I should get partial points for damage.

Also because your ship with one hull on it that is 'still in the fight' wouldn't be next turn, but oh wait the game went to time because you slow rolled me. 'Good game'.

I see your point about the current system. I don't disagree that the current MoV rules aren't working and are causing problems. I don't believe that partial points solves this. I think it just changes it to a different set of problems. I think we need something different

Someone may have already had this idea I am not sure. Determine the % of damage on a ship based on hull and shields. Use that % to determine the points awarded for damage. One person used a Han of 48 and 3 ties for 36. Han under the present system wins although he is about to die possibly. Say the Han had one hit point(hull)left. Han has 13 hits to start, so he at this point is 92% damaged. So the opposing player receives 92% of Hans value or 44 points giving the tie player 96 points for ships destroyed or damaged.In return the Han player receives nothing if the ties are undamaged and wins by a 96 to 64 score..

Han has R2D2 and Chewbacca crew and can thus regenerate shields and discard damage cards. How do you factor that into scoring?

Paring crits, ships are 100% effective until the they are destroyed. Why should you get points for a ship that is still in the fight and doing damage?

Because such a system rewards me for engaging and shooting your stuff - or at least moreso than an all-or-nothing system that only cares about whether my hyper defensive ships survived. That would be why I should get partial points for damage.

Also because your ship with one hull on it that is 'still in the fight' wouldn't be next turn, but oh wait the game went to time because you slow rolled me. 'Good game'.

I see your point about the current system. I don't disagree that the current MoV rules aren't working and are causing problems. I don't believe that partial points solves this. I think it just changes it to a different set of problems. I think we need something different

We could move to a tournament system that doesn't use tiebreakers at all, like replacing Swiss rounds with round-robin groups of 4 or 6. But that comes with some drawbacks, too.

How about just killing the ships and getting better at killing the hard to kill ships?

Another big con I can think of for this would be two items: Hull upgrade and shield upgrade. Even if there is software to handle these things, asking players and TO's to keep track of items like that is going to complicate the scoring just from a keeping-track-of standpoint.

I think it would be relatively simple to calculate. If X-Wing did adopt something along these lines (please, for the love of God, no!) I think you would simply add ship/pilot costs with all upgrades and divide by the number of total hit points.

If you add a hull upgrade to an X-Wing you would divide by 6 instead of the normal 5 for that ship.

I think the process would also add way to much complexity and create too much room for error. Registration would take more time to verify that math was done correctly so that a given ship had the right number to use throughout the day. If you end up with a mistake that is caught later in the day you could have a convoluted mess.

I see your point about the current system. I don't disagree that the current MoV rules aren't working and are causing problems. I don't believe that partial points solves this. I think it just changes it to a different set of problems. I think we need something different

There is no perfect solution, so waiting around for The Perfect Solution and ignoring a good solution is nonsensical. Partial points are more difficult to game and better reflect the actual game state than all or nothing points, full stop. The only drawback is that someone would either need to alter tournament software, or someone would have to write-up score sheets.

Which apparently is too much for people to handle, I guess?

No wonder my generation ain't making it to the moon. :|

if we're looking for a practical solution outside of "don't play fat turrets" (the most practical solution to secure everyone's enjoyment of the game ), there are only two things I can imagine:

1.) Ships below a certain % of hull are worth full points, which would be interesting since it forces you into the fight even with little things (like running Ties off to preserve m.o.v). Think of it as ship maintenance costing almost as much as just buying a new ship, if there even are lore justifications as to how m.o.v works (losing an entire swarm to kill solo would probably be hailed as a victory, but instead we have 3 talas cheering and patting themselves on the back while the beloved rogue's corpse is off floating in the depths of space)

2.) Turn X-wing into an objective based game that would directly discourage running away like a ninny.

#2 is probably never happening, I understand, I am just submitting it as the DE-facto gameplay deterrent to the exact problem we're trying to address.

In Warmachine, the objectives are there to keep the "scoot and shoot" nightmare from polluting one's enjoyment of the game. Rather than allowing an enemy to roam free (and thus always having free reign to run away and throw dice), objectives force engagements at select areas of the table. While victories are rarely decided by objective points, opponents could annihilate each other based on how they exploited the enemy's approach to the zones/flags/objectives that had to be contested or destroyed.

Mainly, they added a lot of variety to the typical death-match game, gave a wide variety of lists an alternate win condition (especially since match-ups in Warmachine can make it incredibly difficult for one force to kill another), and punished players who only ran by handing them a loss.

I really see the shutting the door on lower agility ships out of the competitive scene as the biggest problem for the Partial Point System. Most of the Counters use Han as the reason for wanting the new system. If it's your desire to stop the Han builds with a new tournament system, perhaps we should look for a different fix beside flipping the whole system on it's head.