The particular suggestion here is is not merely less than ideal, it extremely inaccurate for many common scenarios, and would be only marginally better than the current system we have now.

I'll acknowledge that clearly low-HP, high point ships (Whisper, Fel) are in a more favorable position under my proposal. That may be ok, given that the probability that these types of ships can take down multiple lesser ships is pretty high. It also may not, I can't say.

Whether it is marginal or not, we'll chalk that up to a difference of opinion. I think it falls in the middle of nothing and everything, you think it is toward the nothing end. We aren't going to reach agreement on that. What I will say is that I would take a small difference that could happen over a big difference that will never happen any day of the week.

It's easily quantifiable. For the stereotypical example of a 64 point 1HP Fat Han:

• Current system: 0 points
• two points per damage inflicted: 24 points
• half points: 32 points
• "easy to compute" partial points: 48 points
• accurate partial points: 59 points

I have discussed at length how I think that even half points is insufficient to address the issue. Two points per damage caused does even less to mitigate the problem in the most common scenarios.

24 points is far from marginal is what I'm getting at. It isn't almost nothing. It is right about in the middle of FFGs "nothing" and your "everything". Not marginal.

But let me help. Here is a better example:

44 pt Whisper left with one health:

• Current system: 0 points
• two points per damage inflicted: 6 points
• half points: 22 points
• "easy to compute" partial points: (I have no idea what this easy to compute variant is)
• accurate partial points: 33 points

33 points is much more accurate than my system's 6 points, and 6 points in this case is very marginal.

And what is what a good guy I am. I'll help you counter my own points . My system is marginal for the Whispers and SuperFels of the world, and that is probably not the best thing.

hmm, more calculations needed to finish this match............

• "easy to compute" partial points: (I have no idea what this easy to compute variant is)

Mr Froggies suggested it.

The "accurate" way is:

points = rounddown[ (hit points removed) * (starting cost) / (starting hit points) ]

The "easy" way for a ship not completely destroyed is:

points = (hit points removed) * rounddown[ (starting cost) / (starting hit points) ]

It is "easy" because you only have to do a divide once for each ship at the start of the tournament.

I might have come up with a way to explain that the current system is fine using math wing as a root.

An academy tie fighter is the baseline efficient ship. If you had an academy tie fighter with 2 hull, presumably it's jousting value is lowered. Likewise, an academy tie fighter with 1 hull has even worse jousting efficiency.

If I built a list with 3 tie fighters that have 1 hull point and otherwise are identical to normal academies, the only difference is my low jousting value, I still have 3 ships, they just have bad efficiency.

Dealing non-fatal damage can thus be seen as simply reducing your opponent's jousting efficiency, while killing a ship makes it have a null jousting value. You wouldn't get victory points for me playing a list full of inefficient ships, so why would you get them for simply rendering my list less efficient at jousting?

It is only when you remove a ship entirely from the board that you have actually moved closer to the goal of removing all of my ships from the board, before that point you were just making that goal easier for yourself to achieve by lowering my efficiency.

There is a representative value in taking damage though, because you are absorbing your opponent's shots. You can't completely mitigate damage, you have to take some of it. A half-dead TIE is still as cost efficient as it was before, it just has less time to live. It has done its bit for King and Country.

The thing with changing the scoring system is it risks unbalancing all of the stuff ffg designed and released with the old scoring system in mind. Such a fundamental change should not be adopted without extensive testing and analysis.

As it stands, you just have to adapt to the current system and always be thinking about time considerations and your expected remaining damage output. If you see your opponent is running away his damaged ships, you have to adapt and anticipate that and then capitalize on it. It can be done.

The thing with changing the scoring system is it risks unbalancing all of the stuff ffg designed and released with the old scoring system in mind. Such a fundamental change should not be adopted without extensive testing and analysis.

As it stands, you just have to adapt to the current system and always be thinking about time considerations and your expected remaining damage output. If you see your opponent is running away his damaged ships, you have to adapt and anticipate that and then capitalize on it. It can be done.

MOV was incorporated into X-Wing midstream. They haven't designed the game around it. This is partially the point. Some ships perform with an advantage under MOV that was not anticipated by FFG.

The game wasn't designed around a competitive system anyway.

That suggestion is well intended, but it still has huge step functions in MoV scoring when you read a "threshold", so doesn't really fix the problem.

X-wing is far too interactive with multiple interleaved decisions to make a clock practical. And a clock is a pain, I don't want to be thinking about that while I play.

I think we have to just accept it the way it is, and hope that FFG someday puts out an elegant and easy way to calculate MoV using partial points. I.e. tournament software that works and is easy to use.

Well, the goal would be mostly to address the issue of slow play; clocks make slow rolling impractical. I don't know that there exists a solution for fat builds; they were probably just a fundamental design mistake.

The interactivity is not that big a hurdle. During a complex phase, like combat, you run both clocks simultaneously and/or pause both clocks (each solution has it's own drawback; pausing the clocks extends the length of the tournament, running both clocks grants an opportunity for slow rolling. Personally, I think I'd just run the things and make the clock face private information). During dial setting and placement, you run your own clock. When moving your ship and taking actions, you run your own clock. This is not hard.

Out of curiosity, have you played game variants where time is a resource you have to manage? I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but for me - as someone initially skeptical of the idea, due to bad implementation in video games - I won't even play some games anymore without clocks because it adds so much more to the experience. I won't sit down for chess or Puerto Rico anymore without clocks (...okay, I will. But I will wish we had timers...)

Does the TO currently come over to every table after each match to count up player's MOV? No. The players do it.

Does the current MOV system involve no math? No, players have to add up the points killed by both sides and subtract the results to determine MOV.

Is the current system perfect at accurately representing who is winning a game? Hell no.

The only hurdle that partial MOV adds is that players will have to start pressing the "divide" button on their calculator (which everyone has on them thanks to cell phones). People would rather just stay with the devil they know.

These threads keep popping up on a regular basis. Can we take a moment to explicitly state what you think the issue is that needs to be fixed? What, in detail, is the problem with the current cases?

Once a problem Is specifically laid out, then maybe people will be able to agree on a solution. If in fact the problem can even be agreed upon.

These threads keep popping up on a regular basis. Can we take a moment to explicitly state what you think the issue is that needs to be fixed? What, in detail, is the problem with the current cases?

Once a problem Is specifically laid out, then maybe people will be able to agree on a solution. If in fact the problem can even be agreed upon.

Slow rolling and defensive play is becoming a new normal in tournament play, as fat ships in combination with running down the clock to avoid shooting phases grants you a significant statistical advantage in a tournament.

These threads keep popping up on a regular basis. Can we take a moment to explicitly state what you think the issue is that needs to be fixed? What, in detail, is the problem with the current cases?

Once a problem Is specifically laid out, then maybe people will be able to agree on a solution. If in fact the problem can even be agreed upon.

Slow rolling and defensive play is becoming a new normal in tournament play, as fat ships in combination with running down the clock to avoid shooting phases grants you a significant statistical advantage in a tournament.

How normal is this? How often does it come up in tournaments? Also, this appears to not be a MoV problem at all. MoV is for determining ties between people with equal win-loss records. It appears as though the goal of these suggestions is to change who wins and who loses.

These threads keep popping up on a regular basis. Can we take a moment to explicitly state what you think the issue is that needs to be fixed? What, in detail, is the problem with the current cases?

Once a problem Is specifically laid out, then maybe people will be able to agree on a solution. If in fact the problem can even be agreed upon.

Slow rolling and defensive play is becoming a new normal in tournament play, as fat ships in combination with running down the clock to avoid shooting phases grants you a significant statistical advantage in a tournament.

How normal is this? How often does it come up in tournaments? Also, this appears to not be a MoV problem at all. MoV is for determining ties between people with equal win-loss records. It appears as though the goal of these suggestions is to change who wins and who loses.

I can't believe it is overly normal for people to slow play. It has become very normal to run this list type, presumably in part due to its MOV advantages.

For everyone who is saying that MOV is an "inaccurate" (not to be confused with "unbiased") means of measuring a player's score, let me bring you back to reality. In X-Wing, a ship's battlefield value does not scale linearly with the amount of damage it takes. In fact, for some ships the battlefield value actually INCREASES as more damage is taken (Ex: any ship with Ysanne Isard crew, or Commander Kenkirk in the VT-49 Decimator). Basically, ships continue to put out the same amount of dice whether they have full health or 1 health remaining (barring weapon malfunction critical).

Put quite simply, if you see that your opponent has 60+ points put into a single ship and you don't make that your top priority to destroy, it's not MOV's fault. It's your gameplay, specifically your targeting priority. 60 minutes is plenty of time for nearly any force to concentrate fire and destroy a single large target. For a nautical reference, a ship that limps back into port on fumes is MUCH more valuable than one at the bottom of the sea.

The quote below sums up this concept:

Put quite simply, if you see that your opponent has 60+ points put into a single ship and you don't make that your top priority to destroy, it's not MOV's fault. It's your gameplay, specifically your targeting priority. 60 minutes is plenty of time for nearly any force to concentrate fire and destroy a single large target. For a nautical reference, a ship that limps back into port on fumes is MUCH more valuable than one at the bottom of the sea.

Put quite simply, this is a drastic oversimplification and you are wrong.

I have talked at length about a particular matchup that I had that definitively disproves this line of thinking. No need to drag it up again.

At best, it can be said that the MoV severely restricts your tactical options. (This is never a good thing in a miniatures game). A good opponent will take advantage of this and force you into a bad engagement position, thereby giving him the advantage. And with particular matchups he can also play slowly and kill the clock even in a 75 minute game.

So what is the MoV root problem? Can we state it clearly?

I'm gathering the following from the conversations on this...

1: it doesn't reflect board state.

2: it allows for creating point fortresses.

The goal of partial points is to impact these?

Points exclude positional data, so even if my falcon is at 1 hp, and your interceptor at full health, if I am unstressed and behind you, and you are stressed... This board state is very different from you are behind me at range 1, and I am stressed and pointed to fly off the field. Maybe my shuttle is at 1 because I've been vadering you, and you've not hit it. partial points seem to give us a more accurate picture of the game state, but still don't render 1 faithfully.

2 seems to be the root of the problem to me...

So again, the issue is not about tie breakers, the issue is who should win if the game goes to time, is that correct?

3. The game was never designed from the ground up with balanced competitive play in mind, timed matches is one example.

So again, the issue is not about tie breakers, the issue is who should win if the game goes to time, is that correct?

That's the primary concern. A secondary concern is that Fat Ships will mathematically have a superior MoV than non-fat lists.

So what changes affect timed matches, and what is a fat ship?

So what changes affect timed matches, and what is a fat ship?

A fat ship is a large based ship with mostly (or even exclusively) defensive upgrades, designed to win the game via attrition & MoV. Han Solo with Engine Upgrade, MF Title, R2 D2 and C 3P0, for example. The objective is to kill just enough enemy points that your fat ship is now worth more than their remaining force, then just hug the table edge and circle the board until time is called.

There are other variants of the 'Fat' list, of course - Soontir + RAC, for example (where Soontir actually takes on the role of the 'fat' ship, keeping himself out of arc rather than by absorbing shots over and over).

I should've said.... What exactly makes a fat ship fat, can we define it? Or does it too have a nebulous line... For example is a fully loaded falcon with no defensive upgrades fat? Or what about a falcon with c3poand r2d2 alone?

I dont understand the issue, below are my 2 preferred lists:

E-WING: · Corran Horn (35)

Veteran Instincts (1)

Fire Control System (2)

· R2-D2 (4)

Shield Upgrade (4)

YT-2400: · Dash Rendar (36)

Veteran Instincts (1)

"Mangler" Cannon (4)

Engine Upgrade (4)

Tactician (2)

· Outrider (5)

Corran is 46 points and Dash is 52

Points per dmg are:

Dash: 5 points (5.2 rounded down)

Corran: 7 (7.66 rounded down).

X-WING: · Luke Skywalker (28)

Push The Limit (3)

R2 Astromech (1)

Engine Upgrade (4)

X-WING: · Wedge Antilles (29)

Push The Limit (3)

R2 Astromech (1)

Engine Upgrade (4)

Z-95 HEADHUNTER: Tala Squadron Pilot (13)

Z-95 HEADHUNTER: Tala Squadron Pilot (13)

Points/damage are:

Luke: 7 (7.2 rounded down)

Wedge: 7 (7.4 rounded down)

Talas (ea): 3 (3.25 rounded down)

With the first list under current scoring the fat Dash can soak damage where Corran can't. The second list I dont have someone to just soak up damage and live long enough to win. The first list has a clear advantage under the current system because of the scoring system.

Based on both participating in and running tournaments id be happy to see a partial scoring system.

As for those who believe sos is better, ive seen drops affect the top 8 cut.

If it were up to me, I would add clocks and turn time into a resource that each player must spend from their own pool. IMHO, it is easier overall to implement and fairer than either a partial points or all-or-nothing system.

Unless I've completely misunderstood this, it would seem to me that would penalise swarm builds and just give even more encouragement to field the same type of builds that players currently use to preserve MoV.

Rather than try to penalise slow play or defensive builds, would it not be better and simpler all-round to offer bonuses to encourage fast attacking play?

Like a MoV bonus of say 10-20 points if you table your opponent within the time limit?

Now ships with simple dials and without any movement options are at quite an advantage. If you just have to account for your movement and have TL/Focus, it's quite fast paced and sonetimes even a lot faster than a Phantom with decloak, movement, barrel roll and such all being options. I am wuite confident that i could move a Z-95 swarm faster than someone can move 4 Interceptors with all actions and movements considered.

Now the problem is if you have large clumps of asteroids and ships, where you need to remove stuff in order to check if the K-turn works, or if you have to resolve effects like mines or APLs. Now whose time would get taken for that? After all if i run into a mine my opponent lays or if there s just someone trying to block the crap out of my ships that would not be all my fault, so whose clock is going to run for that? Or do you just stop both?

That's why i think the idea is not too great really after all!