So as we know the MOV meta currently favors tough to kill large ships in order to deny points unlike small swarm ships which give out a dozen points freely. Now I will admit most of these are numbers I just thrown up and not considered too terribly balanced but they are up to sort of pull power from large ships.

• Shields Down (must have >0 value shield stats) 1 point

So simple if the shields are rmoved from the game and not regenerated then that is a single point. For unshielded ships like the Tie Fighter, Tie Bomber and Tie interceptor they do not count as they have no shields (unless you give them shield upgrade). Now 1 point isn't really that much and it does hose scum down a bit which mean at the first hit they give away a free point. But now taking 4 shields off of a Decimator or 5 from the falcon does give some points. However upgrades that recover shields get a slight boost. Might be a good enough reason to use IG-88A. Again the numbers haven't been crunched for better balance (such as making it 4 points instead of 1).

• 1 hull remaining (10 points)

So this would be the partial kill. If you have 1 hull point remaining now it doesn't get away scotch free. Now it does mean that Tie fighters give over half their value upon the 2nd damage card or a lucky direct hit. But the next hit will only give the difference. There is still reasons to remove 1 hull point fighters as they can still bring 3 attack dice to the other ships and there is still 2 points to gain. But now if a falcon is reduced to 1 hull point it still counts as 10 points.

Okay so these are some proposals. I picked these because well they are easy to determine, don't require complicated math and it helps put more points on the table from those that deny full value by running away the 1 health ship. What are your ideas for MOV balance against the big ships?

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.

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.

This is my take:

Before the game begins:

Take the cost of the ship / (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.

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. I feel your pain.

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.

That is the problem with partial points. It adds to the overhead of the TO and extra record keeping. Instead of a simple destroyed/alive, you have to check how many hull points it has left, if it had shields or not, ect...

No matter how they do it, it will slow things down, because now there's more to keep track of. It's possible that the extra time is worth it, but there really needs to be at least a quick and simple way for the TO to figure out MOV.

How do Warhammer and other tournaments do it? They have a sheet and each player must sign it, then turn it into TO. No math is needed for the TO. It's done by the players

Simple

How do Warhammer and other tournaments do it?

I don't think Warhammer or warmahordes keeps track things like partial points.

For Heroscape tournaments that use partial point scoring, it's easy. Just divide the point total by the life/#squads per card, rounded up. Simple. Those Heroscape doesn't have the level of customization for individual units that X-Wing does. but the same thing can be applied here. And it's not hard to do. Only do it for games that are called.

How do Warhammer and other tournaments do it? They have a sheet and each player must sign it, then turn it into TO.

Simple

That is the problem with partial points. It adds to the overhead of the TO and extra record keeping. Instead of a simple destroyed/alive, you have to check how many hull points it has left, if it had shields or not, ect...

No matter how they do it, it will slow things down, because now there's more to keep track of. It's possible that the extra time is worth it, but there really needs to be at least a quick and simple way for the TO to figure out MOV.

You would count total hit points, so Hull + Shields. I'll have to dig up the tournament scoring sheet that I made as an example.

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?

Rather than try to penalise slow play or defensive builds, would it not be better 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?

Bonuses to table the opponent don't help in situations when one player is getting annihilated if the game went to time, but is winning on points as time is called. In that situation (which can be very common), there is still zero motivation for the player that is running away to engage.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

How do Warhammer and other tournaments do it?

I don't think Warhammer or warmahordes keeps track things like partial points.

They used too. I have been playing since the late 80's, they did it for years. Not sure why they stopped it.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

This is my take:

Before the game begins:

Take the cost of the ship / (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.

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. I feel your pain.

I'll just throw this out here because it has been bothering me for a while. I rarely read your posts in much detail. I don't know what it is, but the white background makes them hard to read for me. I can't really pinpoint why - perhaps it is just a washout thing caused by combination of font, background and screen brightness. Just something. There are weird lines at the breaks too.

Anyways, input how you want, but for me at least, it is harder for the message you want to convey to get through.

This is my take:

Before the game begins:

Take the cost of the ship / (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.

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. I feel your pain.

I'll just throw this out here because it has been bothering me for a while. I rarely read your posts in much detail. I don't know what it is, but the white background makes them hard to read for me. I can't really pinpoint why - perhaps it is just a washout thing caused by combination of font, background and screen brightness. Just something. There are weird lines at the breaks too.

Anyways, input how you want, but for me at least, it is harder for the message you want to convey to get through.

Sorry. I'm color blind. So I use weird colors on my screens. Blues and Greys basically look the same to me. So I have to use very different color. This is why I have issues seeing stuff on Vassal.

I will change my color background. Your the first person to tell me that they had issues with it. Thanks,

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

This is my take:

Before the game begins:

Take the cost of the ship / (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.

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. I feel your pain.

I'll just throw this out here because it has been bothering me for a while. I rarely read your posts in much detail. I don't know what it is, but the white background makes them hard to read for me. I can't really pinpoint why - perhaps it is just a washout thing caused by combination of font, background and screen brightness. Just something. There are weird lines at the breaks too.

Anyways, input how you want, but for me at least, it is harder for the message you want to convey to get through.

Sorry. I'm color blind. So I use weird colors on my screens. Blues and Greys basically look the same to me. So I have to use very different color. This is why I have issues seeing stuff on Vassal.

I will change my color background. Your the first person to tell me that they had issues with it. Thanks,

No problem. You clearly put a lot of thought into posts, and whether I agree with them or not it is a shame if your points are missed due to being hard on the eyes. Hopefully you can just find a different color combo that works.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

At the very least if you take the cheapest ship in the game at 12pts. and look at it's hull and shields (A z-95 has 4) I would recommend 3 pts for each damage instead of 2. Not the best solution, but I can tell you I would have won some more games, with it.

This is my take:

Before the game begins:

Take the cost of the ship / (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.

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. I feel your pain.

I'll just throw this out here because it has been bothering me for a while. I rarely read your posts in much detail. I don't know what it is, but the white background makes them hard to read for me. I can't really pinpoint why - perhaps it is just a washout thing caused by combination of font, background and screen brightness. Just something. There are weird lines at the breaks too.

Anyways, input how you want, but for me at least, it is harder for the message you want to convey to get through.

Sorry. I'm color blind. So I use weird colors on my screens. Blues and Greys basically look the same to me. So I have to use very different color. This is why I have issues seeing stuff on Vassal.

I will change my color background. Your the first person to tell me that they had issues with it. Thanks,

No problem. You clearly put a lot of thought into posts, and whether I agree with them or not it is a shame if your points are missed due to being hard on the eyes. Hopefully you can just find a different color combo that works.

Is this better? Can you see it better

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

At the very least if you take the cheapest ship in the game at 12pts. and look at it's hull and shields (A z-95 has 4) I would recommend 3 pts for each damage instead of 2. Not the best solution, but I can tell you I would have won some more games, with it.

Creates weirdness with ships like the lambda. It goes negative in points before you kill it

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

At the very least if you take the cheapest ship in the game at 12pts. and look at it's hull and shields (A z-95 has 4) I would recommend 3 pts for each damage instead of 2. Not the best solution, but I can tell you I would have won some more games, with it.

Creates weirdness with ships like the lambda. It goes negative in points before you kill it

I agree, but at least it's something.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

At the very least if you take the cheapest ship in the game at 12pts. and look at it's hull and shields (A z-95 has 4) I would recommend 3 pts for each damage instead of 2. Not the best solution, but I can tell you I would have won some more games, with it.

And yes, your posts are totally clear now, so if it works for you, I think you have the solution.

EDIT: Weird. Somehow an edit turned into a double post.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution. If FFG implemented my suggestion tomorrow, would you say "Big mistake. We're worse off than before", or could you accept that it is a step in the right direction?

At the very least if you take the cheapest ship in the game at 12pts. and look at it's hull and shields (A z-95 has 4) I would recommend 3 pts for each damage instead of 2. Not the best solution, but I can tell you I would have won some more games, with it.

Creates weirdness with ships like the lambda. It goes negative in points before you kill it .

And yes, your posts are totally clear now, so if it works for you, I think you have the solution.

Great! Thanks for telling me about it. Good old Monochrome and black. Linux style!