"Theorycrafting" should not be a word. It gives an air of legitimacy to what is at best an educated guess and at worst gut feeling. There's no craftsmanship about it. Who even came up with that word? I want to grumble in their general direction.

As for partial MoV, I fail to see how that hurts B-wing more than say, TIE interceptors. Partial MoV is where rather than a ship's full cost being scored on death for MoV purposes, it's worth its point cost multiplied by its total damage (including shields lost) divided by its total health.

If you think this gives an advantage to high agility ships, consider this: a 25 point PTL TIE interceptor and a 25pt Advanced Sensors B-wing. The B-wing is much easier to damage than the TIE interceptor, however the B-wing's hit points count for less. Each hit on the B-wing is worth 3.125 points, and each hit on the TIE interceptor is worth 8.3. The B-wing's easier to hit, but you need to hit it three times.

The phantom is a nightmare to hit, but hitting a 40pt phantom is worth 10 points a hit. By constrast, a 40pt VT-49 Decimator is only worth 2.5 points a hit.

Lower agility ships are easier to hit, but the reward for hitting them is accordingly lower.

Remember that this only applies to MoV. Victory'd still be determined normally.

Partial points doesn't give an advantage to high agility ships because high agility ships have less health for their cost and thus damaging them is proportionally more rewarding.

I just played a game recently with a HWK and 2 B's against a swarm and I managed to keep some near dead or half dead ships going for a while. Partial MoV would punish these types of lists heavily. If the game ends with a 31 point B at 4 health left and a Black Squadron TIE with 2 left, I have 15.5 points left and my opponent has ~10. Neat, if that game was timed I would have had a modified, yet I essentially have 31 points on the table and my opponent has 14.

And the way I see that he almost killed your B-wing. Should he be scored as if he never scratched it?

And the way I see that he almost killed your B-wing. Should he be scored as if he never scratched it?

Yes, dealing damage is worth nothing tactically, why should it be worth points?

I think that people are advocating these ideas, but the real solution isn't to 'fix' the system, because inevitably the system will end up proving to still be exploitable by other issues that present themselves.

But that is a completely meaningless statement unless you quantify how "broken" the current system is vs how "broken" the replacement system would be. For example, if the current system can be regularly abused to gain a 50 point advantage, and the replacement system can only be abused to gain about a 5 point advantage, which system is preferred?

Using your logic, the designers shouldn't have bothered with the Raider to fix the TIE Advanced, Chaardan Refit for the A-wing, or a myriad of other fixes, because there will always be something that's not perfect.

The point isn't to make it perfect, it is to make it significantly better (or equivalently less broken) than it currently is.

Well, that's one perspective, but ultimately I can't "push" for anything as I am neither a designer or a playtester.

The thing to take away from these discussions is just table every opponent and you never have to care!

The thing to take away from these discussions is just table every opponent and you never have to care!

Or conversely play a Fat List and don't let them table you.

// sadface

The thing to take away from these discussions is just table every opponent and you never have to care!

Or conversely play a Fat List and don't let them table you.

// sadface

Yes, dealing damage is worth nothing tactically, why should it be worth points?

That sounds like a defence of Critical Existence Failure.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure

Firstly, dealing damage is how you kill ships, so to say it has no tactical worth is incorrect. Even if you do not destroy the ship, there are Critical Hits, which is the game's simplification of ships falling apart as they're shot to bits.

The reasoning for Partial MoV is because the current MoV system encourages you to fly as few ships as possible. If a Falcon goes up against an equivalent point cost of TIE fighters in an untimed game, mechanically it's usually a fair fight.

However, if a 60pt Falcon is harried, cornered and whittled down to one hit point and in return knocks out a single one of a swarm of four or five TIE fighters. It's on its final hit point, venting atmosphere and drifting through space on backup power as the TIEs close in. There's no realistic way it'll survive another few rounds except by an incredible stroke of luck.

Time is called, and the Falcon wins. The TIEs have destroyed over 92% of the Falcon's hit points, the Falcon a mere 25% of the four TIE swarm and 20% of the five TIE swarm. And the Falcon wins because the TIE player has more ships. His quanta are lower, and thus he has an unfair advantage goes to the Falcon.

Flip the situation around where the Falcon has lost a quarter of its hit points and a lone TIE is limping around on one hit point, and the Falcon obviously wins.

To win, the TIE player must destroy 60 points of ship. The Falcon player needs only kill 12.

The result? A two ship meta. Flying lots of ships is a liability because the other player can score more based on killing fewer points worth of ships.

Games are only timed by necessity. Partial MoV is a far better way of determining who would have won were it untimed, rather than having the expensive ship count as if it was unharmed. If a game goes to time you're scored based on what's in a way your chance of victory at that point. Take the B-wing versus TIE fighter situation above. 4 HP B-wing, 2 HP Black Squadron Pilot. That could go either way. The B-wing's got a better shot at it but it's close, and that's well represented by 15.5 points versus 10. If the B-wing was one one hit point it'd be worth 3.9 MoV points against the 2 HP Black Squadron at 10. The Black Squadron pilot's got a better shot at winning here and his points reflect that.

It's just so much better, and is an immeasurably more realistic way of gauging who was likely to have won. It all but removes the distortion that timed game create.

I'm struggling to think of any stupid scenario that partial MoV would create nor any shenanigans that could be born of it. R2-D2 gets brought up but I don't see the issue. He regenerates health. He's no more powerful in Partial MoV than in any other system. Yes, you can strip his shields and he can fully recover them, but if you're up against a fully regened Corran when time is called and you have a half dead Alpha Squadron pilot your chances of winning aren't exactly high anyway.

Don't think of it as scoring you for damage dealt. Think of it as scoring you based on how likely you were to win when time is called.

I'm afraid you really haven't done anything to disprove my statement other than attempt to discard it with a link to something irrelevant. Dealing damage is one way to destroy ships, but not the only way. It is entirely possibly to win a game of xwing and deal 0 damage. It requires your opponent to fly everything off the board, granted, but it's possible. It is not possible to win the game without destroying any ships. Thus, the thing that wins the game (destroying ships) should be scored, not the thing that is one way to achieve the thing that wins you games.

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future? That seems ludicrous to even suggest unless you look at tailored corner cases like the 1 hp Han vs. Tie swarm argument. If we are deciding who 'would have won' and think we can accurately do that why not just use jousting values and call it at the start? That's a silly suggestion of course, but so is a scoring system that tries to predict the future rather than one that reflects what happened.

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

While true, that's not the reasoning most people give when advocating for partial points. Additionally, to change scoring methodology there should likely be a solid reason behind it. As there is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship, there seems to be no reason to change scoring systems.

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

While true, that's not the reasoning most people give when advocating for partial points. Additionally, to change scoring methodology there should likely be a solid reason behind it. As there is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship, there seems to be no reason to change scoring systems.

I may not be understanding your point, but I *think* the gameplay advantage to damaging a ship is that it's closer to being dead.

You don't think a solid reason is that the current system gives an advantage to "point fortresses" as they're now being called?

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

While true, that's not the reasoning most people give when advocating for partial points. Additionally, to change scoring methodology there should likely be a solid reason behind it. As there is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship, there seems to be no reason to change scoring systems.

The same argument could be used to say that there is no gameplay advantage to stalling for time, so why is it explicitly illegal in the tournament rules?

P.S. "There is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship".

The problem with stating an absolute negative in a philosophical argument is that if there is even one counter example in the entire known universe, then your entire argument is disproved.

Here is a simple example. I am flying my Terminators list, IG88BD with Heavy Laser Cannons and Fire-control System. I can't quite reliably kill a B-wing in one round, but if I get it down to 1-2 health then I can almost certainly kill it next round before it shoots. That is a significant gameplay advantage.

Next.

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

While true, that's not the reasoning most people give when advocating for partial points. Additionally, to change scoring methodology there should likely be a solid reason behind it. As there is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship, there seems to be no reason to change scoring systems.

Changing the scoring system is... I won't say "necessary", but it's desirable precisely because there's no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship.

As I've said before, consider a game where one player has a 63-point Han Solo with 1 hit point plus a pile of stress tokens and a few nasty critical hits, and the other has five healthy Academy Pilots. No one would look at that board state and claim the Falcon player is winning, but according to the current method of calculating MOV, that's exactly what's happening.

***

For an even more extreme thought experiment, consider a single ship that's legitimately worth 100 points. (Maybe it has 3 Attack, a turret, can attack twice per round, and has 108 hit total points. Whatever.) Now put that ship up against an 8-TIE swarm. Again, assuming that one ship actually lives up to its cost, it's an open question who's going to win an untimed game. But if the game is called at any moment before the big ship is destroyed, the player with the big ship wins on points almost regardless of what else has happened at the table.

In other words, even though we started off with the assumption that the player with the big ship has no advantage on the table, he or she has a big advantage in a timed, tournament setting.

So the problem is a mismatch between the game itself and the tournament structure around it. It makes sense to me to bring the tournament structure into better correspondence with the game, and partial MOV would be a way to do that.

I'm afraid you really haven't done anything to disprove my statement other than attempt to discard it with a link to something irrelevant. Dealing damage is one way to destroy ships, but not the only way. It is entirely possibly to win a game of xwing and deal 0 damage. It requires your opponent to fly everything off the board, granted, but it's possible. It is not possible to win the game without destroying any ships. Thus, the thing that wins the game (destroying ships) should be scored, not the thing that is one way to achieve the thing that wins you games.

How am I meant to disprove an opinion? (Namely, your opinion that ships should only count when they Total Existence Fail)? You might as well ask me to disprove your morals or political beliefs. I can provide arguments in an attempt to sway your opinion, but I can't categorically prove you're wrong any more than you can prove the inverse.

If a ship flys of the board, it counts as destroyed. This is equivalent to having no hit points left, a ship that flies off the board isn't undamaged. However, rather than get bogged down in semantics of the meaning of damage, I'll phrase it differently: partial MoV views ships destroyed as percentage destroyed. You're closer to victory against a 94% dead Decimator (one with one hull remaining) than a full health one.

The Falcon issue isn't a corner case: four 25pt Y-wings have an advantage over eight TIE fighters at 13 and 12 points. If both sides chew through 51 points worth of the enemy list, the Y-wings win. Two Z-95s against a TIE interceptor: the TIE interceptor only has to kill half of the enemy forces to win, the Z-95s must kill all of it. Phantom and Decimator against four X-wing: the X-wings have to knock out half of that list to win, the Phantom and Decimator can win by only killing a quarter.

For an even more extreme thought experiment, consider a single ship that's legitimately worth 100 points.

Both the CR-90 and Raider are worth that many points.

So putting aside the limitations on epic ships in normal games. What happens if you have a 8 Tie swarm vs a CR-90 with 10 points of upgrades.

Is it accurate to say the CR-90 wins if it destroys 1 Tie Fighter leaving 7 more out there but still has 1 hull left on one of it's two sections when time is called?

"Theorycrafting" should not be a word. It gives an air of legitimacy to what is at best an educated guess and at worst gut feeling. There's no craftsmanship about it. Who even came up with that word? I want to grumble in their general direction.

But it's such a cool word

It's just misappropriated. Theorycrafting should relate to something more like a scientist's job (since that's basically what they do, they craft scientific theories through repeated prediction, observation, and experimentation) and less our guesswork (can't test ****, yet)

I think it'd get a lot more kids to pay attention in school. "Science" is lame, but "Theorycrafting" makes it sound badass

I think that people are advocating these ideas, but the real solution isn't to 'fix' the system, because inevitably the system will end up proving to still be exploitable by other issues that present themselves.

But that is a completely meaningless statement unless you quantify how "broken" the current system is vs how "broken" the replacement system would be. For example, if the current system can be regularly abused to gain a 50 point advantage, and the replacement system can only be abused to gain about a 5 point advantage, which system is preferred?

Using your logic, the designers shouldn't have bothered with the Raider to fix the TIE Advanced, Chaardan Refit for the A-wing, or a myriad of other fixes, because there will always be something that's not perfect.

The point isn't to make it perfect, it is to make it significantly better (or equivalently less broken) than it currently is.

No offence meant to MajorJuggler and the rest, but you guys seem to push really hard for your fixes, and I don't know what its really accomplishing or what you're hoping to gain.

Well, that's one perspective, but ultimately I can't "push" for anything as I am neither a designer or a playtester.

I would say that both the fix coming for the advance and the fix available for the A-Wing are not the same as a major change to the scoring system for the game. One is systemic, one is situational. The ships weren't being used. In order to get them up to par and have them get used, fixes came that adjusted a small feature of the game. In the end, we will see a couple more A-Wings and a Couple more Tie Advanced ships on the field. Not a major game changer.

What you're suggesting, and despite downplaying my perspective, is to systemically change the way the game is played.

I get it. You're in favour of it. But it's not much different to me in terms of the current 'problem' that you're seeing, not me. On one hand you think it's fair, and I'd say that asking the great majority of players who are not competitive to adjust to the new system is actually unfair. It's not going to have just the ramifications that you suggest, and I think your view is pretty narrowly focused on the one, specific example.

All I'm saying is that players gonna play - people are focused on a specific ship set that enables them to win. My suggestion is to find ways to beat that within the current system, not change the game's basic scoring premise.

I know you're an advocate for all sorts of good things MJ, but in this case, I think you're wrong.

Jacob

"Theorycrafting" should not be a word. It gives an air of legitimacy to what is at best an educated guess and at worst gut feeling. There's no craftsmanship about it. Who even came up with that word? I want to grumble in their general direction.

But it's such a cool word

It's just misappropriated. Theorycrafting should relate to something more like a scientist's job (since that's basically what they do, they craft scientific theories through repeated prediction, observation, and experimentation) and less our guesswork (can't test ****, yet)

I think it'd get a lot more kids to pay attention in school. "Science" is lame, but "Theorycrafting" makes it sound badass

The appropriate word there is Research.

Is it accurate to say the CR-90 wins if it destroys 1 Tie Fighter leaving 7 more out there but still has 1 hull left on one of it's two sections when time is called?

At the risk of distracting from your point with pedantry, I'm fairly sure a crippled section is worth points.

I get it. You're in favour of it. But it's not much different to me in terms of the current 'problem' that you're seeing, not me. On one hand you think it's fair, and I'd say that asking the great majority of players who are not competitive to adjust to the new system is actually unfair. It's not going to have just the ramifications that you suggest, and I think your view is pretty narrowly focused on the one, specific example.

Were it not for one thing: non-competitive players usually play to the end, without an arbitrary time limit. Taking advantage of the clock is a construct of the tournament system. Partial point makes the game play much more like the full game does because you can't run away at one hull: the clock is not your friend and if you want to "play defensive" you have to plan to from the start. Partial MoV is far more representative of who is closest to defeat than plain MoV ever could be.

For an even more extreme thought experiment, consider a single ship that's legitimately worth 100 points.

Both the CR-90 and Raider are worth that many points.

So putting aside the limitations on epic ships in normal games. What happens if you have a 8 Tie swarm vs a CR-90 with 10 points of upgrades.

Is it accurate to say the CR-90 wins if it destroys 1 Tie Fighter leaving 7 more out there but still has 1 hull left on one of it's two sections when time is called?

Yes, it is legitimate. Because the time has been called.

From this point of view, then baseball games should be about getting runners on base. For every runner you get on base you should get partial points. Or even grading it down lower, each time a bat connects with a ball you should get partial points.

Look guys, like it or not, the basis for the game is this - blow up your opponent. From day one the strategy has been 'whoever blows up more of their opponents ships wins'. From day one. It hasn't changed. It shouldn't change. If it does change, you change the basis for the entire game, and EVERY player has to relearn how to win.

Suddenly all sorts of things could happen. Imagine the situation being that you have people now gearing up Faclons and Decimators to play ultra defensive and regain shields with various shenanigans. The players entire method for playing the game would be to run away and try to take as little damage as possible.

If partial damage scores points, than what's the point in actually blowing up anything? Wouldn't you then try as hard as possible to run impossible or even difficult ships to land damage on? Screw actually destroying your opponent, just run away and land as much damage from afar as you can.

You may not see it, but I do. It would suck.

Jacob

"Theorycrafting" should not be a word. It gives an air of legitimacy to what is at best an educated guess and at worst gut feeling. There's no craftsmanship about it. Who even came up with that word? I want to grumble in their general direction.

But it's such a cool word

It's just misappropriated. Theorycrafting should relate to something more like a scientist's job (since that's basically what they do, they craft scientific theories through repeated prediction, observation, and experimentation) and less our guesswork (can't test ****, yet)

I think it'd get a lot more kids to pay attention in school. "Science" is lame, but "Theorycrafting" makes it sound badass

The appropriate word there is Research.

Is it accurate to say the CR-90 wins if it destroys 1 Tie Fighter leaving 7 more out there but still has 1 hull left on one of it's two sections when time is called?

At the risk of distracting from your point with pedantry, I'm fairly sure a crippled section is worth points.

I get it. You're in favour of it. But it's not much different to me in terms of the current 'problem' that you're seeing, not me. On one hand you think it's fair, and I'd say that asking the great majority of players who are not competitive to adjust to the new system is actually unfair. It's not going to have just the ramifications that you suggest, and I think your view is pretty narrowly focused on the one, specific example.

Were it not for one thing: non-competitive players usually play to the end, without an arbitrary time limit. Taking advantage of the clock is a construct of the tournament system. Partial point makes the game play much more like the full game does because you can't run away at one hull: the clock is not your friend and if you want to "play defensive" you have to plan to from the start. Partial MoV is far more representative of who is closest to defeat than plain MoV ever could be.

Good point. But don't won't players still need to relearn? Yes, this is a tournament situation, but most of the guys I play with are casual, and we still hold events and play timed games. They may be casual, but we still declare winners after a period of time.

Not everyone plays casually just to the full defeat of their opponent when they play casual. Not everyone who plays casually does the 2.5 hour epic drawn out game.

jacob

From this point of view, then baseball games should be about getting runners on base. For every runner you get on base you should get partial points. Or even grading it down lower, each time a bat connects with a ball you should get partial points.

Is there an untimed version of baseball that fails to match the way it's played in a tournament that happens a couple of times a year?

Suddenly all sorts of things could happen. Imagine the situation being that you have people now gearing up Faclons and Decimators to play ultra defensive and regain shields with various shenanigans.

Gosh, what would that be like?

Why on earth would I ever advocate for a system that scores a game based on what might have happened in the future?

Neither partial MoV or the current system score based on what might have happened in the future. They both only look at the damage that has occurred to that point, it is merely calculated differently.

While true, that's not the reasoning most people give when advocating for partial points. Additionally, to change scoring methodology there should likely be a solid reason behind it. As there is no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship, there seems to be no reason to change scoring systems.

Changing the scoring system is... I won't say "necessary", but it's desirable precisely because there's no gameplay advantage to damaging a ship.

As I've said before, consider a game where one player has a 63-point Han Solo with 1 hit point plus a pile of stress tokens and a few nasty critical hits, and the other has five healthy Academy Pilots. No one would look at that board state and claim the Falcon player is winning, but according to the current method of calculating MOV, that's exactly what's happening.

***

For an even more extreme thought experiment, consider a single ship that's legitimately worth 100 points. (Maybe it has 3 Attack, a turret, can attack twice per round, and has 108 hit total points. Whatever.) Now put that ship up against an 8-TIE swarm. Again, assuming that one ship actually lives up to its cost, it's an open question who's going to win an untimed game. But if the game is called at any moment before the big ship is destroyed, the player with the big ship wins on points almost regardless of what else has happened at the table.

In other words, even though we started off with the assumption that the player with the big ship has no advantage on the table, he or she has a big advantage in a timed, tournament setting.

So the problem is a mismatch between the game itself and the tournament structure around it. It makes sense to me to bring the tournament structure into better correspondence with the game, and partial MOV would be a way to do that.

This is, imo, the ultimate reason. The scoring used should be the one that most likely and accurately can reflect the game state if time is called, but it should also give the loser some credit for the damage done because not all lists represent the same opportunity for scoring points.

I do think that point has been ignored in discussion: our opportunity for scoring points under a full points system is determined solely by the opponent, even if there is a clear winner and one player is wiped out.

For example if one player brings 2 ships at 50 points each, his opponent can earn either 0-50-100 points. If he loses, he's either getting 0 or 50. There's not much a losing player can do here to improve his MoV.

If another player brings 5 ships, each worth 20 points, his opponent can score 0-20-40-60-80-100 points. There's a lot more variation in the scoring and an more opportunity for his opponents to score points, and thus improve their MoV even when losing.

Some form of partial points would help that.

Good point. But don't won't players still need to relearn? Yes, this is a tournament situation, but most of the guys I play with are casual, and we still hold events and play timed games. They may be casual, but we still declare winners after a period of time.

Not everyone plays casually just to the full defeat of their opponent when they play casual. Not everyone who plays casually does the 2.5 hour epic drawn out game.

jacob

In casual you call games because you have to go home. You don't get people playing the clock against their opponent.

There's nothing wrong with playing the clock unless you're stalling: it's within the framework of the current rules and it's in part how a lot of the Falcons in Worlds made the cut. But it's so effective it's created a "two ship meta" in a game where two ships used to be considered the height of listbuilding ineptitude: even three ships were considered to struggle for firepower. It's created an environment for the tournament goers that simply isn't fun, and because it favours "point forts" it injects a fundamental imbalance into a game the designers are trying very hard to balance.

Look guys, like it or not, the basis for the game is this - blow up your opponent. From day one the strategy has been 'whoever blows up more of their opponents ships wins'. From day one. It hasn't changed. It shouldn't change. If it does change, you change the basis for the entire game, and EVERY player has to relearn how to win.

Here's the thing - that's not strictly true.

The basis of the game has been "whoever blows up the other player's ships first wins." The basic dogfight rules are based on total annihilation: you fight to the last TIE. And the original tournament rules were harsh on modified wins: to win outright you had to take very few losses while obliterating the opposition. The opponent surviving to the end was likely to get you only slightly more than a draw. MoV changed that in Wave 4, which is only 9 months ago (the game is three years old).

Suddenly all sorts of things could happen. Imagine the situation being that you have people now gearing up Faclons and Decimators to play ultra defensive and regain shields with various shenanigans. The players entire method for playing the game would be to run away and try to take as little damage as possible.

If partial damage scores points, than what's the point in actually blowing up anything? Wouldn't you then try as hard as possible to run impossible or even difficult ships to land damage on? Screw actually destroying your opponent, just run away and land as much damage from afar as you can.

This is what does happen, and what Partial MoV was thought up specfically to avoid. The Fat ship kills a few of the opponent's little ships, then it turtles down and legs it. So long as it keeps one hull point, it counts as if undamaged. In Partial, every point of damage you take counts against you so you can't do this: it's much easier to stop a defensive ship using its high point cost to win because you don't jump from 0 points to 60 points when you kill it, you progress towards sixty as you deal damage. For a TIE swarm, it already works like this: every eighth of the squad you destroy nets you about 12 points.

As for players shaving little bits of damage off each other's ships, no, it would not encourage that. The targeting priority is completely unchanged. Firstly, if one ship is disproportionately valuable, then you'll focus fire on it, just as you would normally. If there's a 40 point Wedge, you zoom at it and kill it. Secondly, you want to kill ships to stop them shooting at you. There's no advantage to dealing one damage each to three TIE fighters: it'll get you the same points under partial MoV as three damage to one. However, focus on one and A: it'll be easier because its tokens will be stripped for follow-up hots and B: you'll lose fewer ships yourself because the dead TIE isn't shooting.

The scenario you fear already exists, and this system is intended to stop it.

What you're suggesting, and despite downplaying my perspective, is to systemically change the way the game is played.

I get it. You're in favour of it. But it's not much different to me in terms of the current 'problem' that you're seeing, not me. On one hand you think it's fair, and I'd say that asking the great majority of players who are not competitive to adjust to the new system is actually unfair. It's not going to have just the ramifications that you suggest, and I think your view is pretty narrowly focused on the one, specific example.

I think that discussion actually has a lot of merit, and I would love to see some discussions and debate about the tradeoffs of partial points. Especially if we had actual tournaments run using it, to get real feedback. At some point you need to start testing things instead of theorizing about it, and we are now well past that point.

At the risk of distracting from your point with pedantry, I'm fairly sure a crippled section is worth points.

Fair enough, and you're right you do. I debated about 1 hull left on both sections, but figured that was adding a complication not needed for the point.

The problem with the current system is it gives an 'artificial' advantage to some ships. I say artificial because in a standard untimed game they wouldn't do nearly as well as they do in a 60 min timed game.