An interesting idea I've heard suggested would be to divide 8 victory points amongst your ships in a 100 list. You fly 8 ships, each one is worth 1 VP. You fly 2 each one is worth 4.

Someone pointed out that this would make killing a Z equivalent to killing Han in a 3 Z + Han list, but okay. You can point fort all you want but that fortress is only worth 1/4th of your list. You might have to actually you know, not run with it the whole game to get it to be worth flying.

2 ship builds would still be kind of point fortressey, but it wouldn't be as bad imo. You fly a 3 ship list against one and they've killed one of your ships and you've killed 1 of theirs and you're winning.

This is actually a really good idea.

My main problem with the partial-points system that everyone has been talking about is the paperwork involved. Even if you have really good software, you'd need the players to keep accurate records which would then need to be entered accurately into the software.

But this idea - VPs assigned to ships based on the ship count - is amazing. It changes the game from trying to kill a particular ship, to trying to kill your opponents list, while trying to preserve yours.

That really doesn't help much at all, in fact, I'd say it makes it worse, heavily discouraging additional ships.

I disagree. Say you have bbbbz vs Dash & Corran. If the bbbbz player just kills 1 ship, the Dash & Corran player needs to kill 3 before time to win. Them's pretty good odds for the bbbbz player.

An interesting idea I've heard suggested would be to divide 8 victory points amongst your ships in a 100 list. You fly 8 ships, each one is worth 1 VP. You fly 2 each one is worth 4.

Someone pointed out that this would make killing a Z equivalent to killing Han in a 3 Z + Han list, but okay. You can point fort all you want but that fortress is only worth 1/4th of your list. You might have to actually you know, not run with it the whole game to get it to be worth flying.

2 ship builds would still be kind of point fortressey, but it wouldn't be as bad imo. You fly a 3 ship list against one and they've killed one of your ships and you've killed 1 of theirs and you're winning.

This is actually a really good idea.

My main problem with the partial-points system that everyone has been talking about is the paperwork involved. Even if you have really good software, you'd need the players to keep accurate records which would then need to be entered accurately into the software.

But this idea - VPs assigned to ships based on the ship count - is amazing. It changes the game from trying to kill a particular ship, to trying to kill your opponents list, while trying to preserve yours.

If you did this, I think that everyone would be even more inclined to simply run 2 ships. But it is impossible to tell for sure without testing it in a competitive environment for an extended period of time. I think the obvious effect would be to completely kill off Han + 3Zs, which would be replaced by Han + 1 ship. It drastically lowers the viable squad options, which is an exceptionally bad thing for the meta game in my opinion.

That really doesn't help much at all, in fact, I'd say it makes it worse, heavily discouraging additional ships.

I disagree. Say you have bbbbz vs Dash & Corran. If the bbbbz player just kills 1 ship, the Dash & Corran player needs to kill 3 before time to win. Them's pretty good odds for the bbbbz player.

That is the same exact scenario that we have right now. I have been thinking about it a lot with my 50/49 dual IG88 build actually.

But this idea - VPs assigned to ships based on the ship count - is amazing. It changes the game from trying to kill a particular ship, to trying to kill your opponents list, while trying to preserve yours.

Except it doesn't. It heavily disincentives any disparity in ship costs and still turns two ship lists into point forts. A Falcon supported by Z-95s would cease to be a popular thing but those Zs would just be replaced by another pancake or one of those 40pt Stealth Hawks.

My main problem with the partial-points system that everyone has been talking about is the paperwork involved.

You've got to do MoV calculations at the end anyway. (Health Lost/Total Health * Point Cost) is not a hard calculation.

And given you've got tournament software it's even easier.

I disagree. Say you have bbbbz vs Dash & Corran. If the bbbbz player just kills 1 ship, the Dash & Corran player needs to kill 3 before time to win. Them's pretty good odds for the bbbbz player.

It's barely any difference to MoV: Dash and Corran only has to kill the Z-95, the swarm has to kill one of those two survivor ships. It's actually worse than MOV because cheap ships go from slightly disincentivised to an outright liability.

What that system does is heavily encourage making all your ships similar costs in addition to encouraging a minimum of ships.

And what about lists with a number of ships different to 2, 4 or 8? Which ship gets the two points?

The whole point of changing the system is to make untimed and timed games as similar as possible and to remove the artifical incentives the clock adds to list building. This makes more.

My main problem with the partial-points system that everyone has been talking about is the paperwork involved.

You've got to do MoV calculations at the end anyway. (Health Lost/Total Health * Point Cost) is not a hard calculation.

And given you've got tournament software it's even easier.

The difficult of the calculation isn't an issue. It could be the easiest calculation on the face of the planet and someone is going to find a way to screw it up. Then when you add 30+ players in a tournament, the chances for errors increase dramatically. Then, who's going to be doing the calculations? For time, you would probably want to rely on the players to do the initial calculations, but who's going to check to make sure they're correct?

If it's on the TO's, imagine the TO having to enter the remaining health of every ship in every list after every round. That would take some time.

The difficult of the calculation isn't an issue. It could be the easiest calculation on the face of the planet and someone is going to find a way to screw it up. Then when you add 30+ players in a tournament, the chances for errors increase dramatically. Then, who's going to be doing the calculations? For time, you would probably want to rely on the players to do the initial calculations, but who's going to check to make sure they're correct?

If it's on the TO's, imagine the TO having to enter the remaining health of every ship in every list after every round. That would take some time.

Firstly, MoV already requires calculations. They're simpler, but required.

Secondly, yes, people will get calculations wrong. They probably get MoV wrong too. As for what checks the calcuations? If the result of this calculation determines whether you advance to the next round or not, you're not going to just leave it to your opponent. And the likelihood of both players screwing up is let's just say not the highest.

Is it more demanding? Yes, but I don't think it's demanding enough to offset the benefit of killing the artifical incentives the clock gives to list building.

@MajorJuggler

Thanks for the response. One thing I've been trying to get out of this is evidence of a need for a changed system, based on actual results rather than theoretical ones. Extreme cases are easy to come up with, but how often does it actually happen?

In my own experience, I took a variant of Fat Han to Worlds last year. I played ten games and only went to time once. Obviously these results are anecdotal, but in my experience I just don't see a need for a change.

(Also, in my last post I was referring to the 60/40 list, not the mythical 1 ship.)

The difficult of the calculation isn't an issue. It could be the easiest calculation on the face of the planet and someone is going to find a way to screw it up. Then when you add 30+ players in a tournament, the chances for errors increase dramatically. Then, who's going to be doing the calculations? For time, you would probably want to rely on the players to do the initial calculations, but who's going to check to make sure they're correct?

If it's on the TO's, imagine the TO having to enter the remaining health of every ship in every list after every round. That would take some time.

Firstly, MoV already requires calculations. They're simpler, but required.

Secondly, yes, people will get calculations wrong. They probably get MoV wrong too. As for what checks the calcuations? If the result of this calculation determines whether you advance to the next round or not, you're not going to just leave it to your opponent. And the likelihood of both players screwing up is let's just say not the highest.

Is it more demanding? Yes, but I don't think it's demanding enough to offset the benefit of killing the artifical incentives the clock gives to list building.

Yes, but partial points require MANY more calculations. If there is a disagreement, the TO would have to be the final arbiter. With current MOV, the TO would just have to calculate the points for each ship that is dead. With the new system, the TO would have to calculate the points for every injured or dead ship to get points. During the course of the tournament, all of this can add up to a significant amount of time. Then you have tournaments that run longer, or tournaments that need shorter rounds due to hard cutoffs.

The current MOV system does have problems and does need some type of adjustment. Whatever adjustment it needs though needs to be very, very easy. Something that can be done very quickly with very little margin of error. I just don't think that the forum's current iteration of partial points is that system.

For another point, let's say we have bbbbz vs Dash/Corran. Dash is 58 points. All of the b's are heavily damaged but no ships were destroyed. Dash is killed but Corran is at full health. The Dash/Corran build would actually win without destroying a ship. Is that what you want to reward? Granted, this is an outlying hypothetical just to illustrate a point. Every system that anyone comes up with is going to have problems. We just have to decide what kind of problems we want to live with at the end of the day.

@MajorJuggler

Thanks for the response. One thing I've been trying to get out of this is evidence of a need for a changed system, based on actual results rather than theoretical ones. Extreme cases are easy to come up with, but how often does it actually happen?

In my own experience, I took a variant of Fat Han to Worlds last year. I played ten games and only went to time once. Obviously these results are anecdotal, but in my experience I just don't see a need for a change.

(Also, in my last post I was referring to the 60/40 list, not the mythical 1 ship.)

The Holy Grail of data collection would be tournament software that recorded the final hit points of each ship. Then you could see what the difference would be with the current system vs a partial points system (assuming gameplay remained identical). Here are some other interesting results from the UK Regionals, cross-posted from the Regionals Results thread.

There are some interesting examples in that Regionals, like: a 0-0 game between opposing 2-ship builds. A 12-0 game where dual IG-88 beat BBBBZ.

Yes, but partial points require MANY more calculations.

One per surviving damaged ship. It's not usually going to be many. I guess if you hit a TIE swarm with an Assault Missile and then got tabled, but then again you can do the TIE calculation in your head.

Don't hold your breath for the new FFG software to solve this issue. I've seen a short review from a Regional store on FB stating that they are not happy with it at all so far.

@MajorJuggler

Thanks for the response. One thing I've been trying to get out of this is evidence of a need for a changed system, based on actual results rather than theoretical ones. Extreme cases are easy to come up with, but how often does it actually happen?

In my own experience, I took a variant of Fat Han to Worlds last year. I played ten games and only went to time once. Obviously these results are anecdotal, but in my experience I just don't see a need for a change.

(Also, in my last post I was referring to the 60/40 list, not the mythical 1 ship.)

The Holy Grail of data collection would be tournament software that recorded the final hit points of each ship. Then you could see what the difference would be with the current system vs a partial points system (assuming gameplay remained identical). Here are some other interesting results from the UK Regionals, cross-posted from the Regionals Results thread.

The 75 minute rounds seem to be helping most games finish, but there are still quite a few that are going to time. Games going to time in the UK Regionals (I think I got these right, manually compiled):

• Round 1: 6 of 33
• Round 2: 7 of 39
• Round 3: 9 of 39
• Round 4: 4 of 39
• Round 5: 7 of 39
• Round 6: 9 of 39
• Top 8: 1 of 4
• Top 4: 0 of 2
• Final: 0 (by definition)

There are some interesting examples in that Regionals, like: a 0-0 game between opposing 2-ship builds. A 12-0 game where dual IG-88 beat BBBBZ.

Those are some interesting results at the end, I'd be curious to know more. I want to know what kind of flying was going that kept the IG-88 from killing a B. Bad dice or did he cut and run?

Don't hold your breath for the new FFG software to solve this issue. I've seen a short review from a Regional store on FB stating that they are not happy with it at all so far.

Oh, I am certainly not expecting anything, I'm just saying that would be the ideal goal.

There are some interesting examples in that Regionals, like: a 0-0 game between opposing 2-ship builds. A 12-0 game where dual IG-88 beat BBBBZ.

Those are some interesting results at the end, I'd be curious to know more. I want to know what kind of flying was going that kept the IG-88 from killing a B. Bad dice or did he cut and run?

I have no idea. But having played dual IG88, the most likely explanation is that both sides refused to engage in a "bad" engagement zone, based on where the rocks are etc. Then at the end the dual IG88 squad engaged and killed the Z, and won on time. It is also possible that the damage was just extremely spread out, who knows.

Here's my anecdotal data.

Two tourneys, 9 games, my Chewbo list only went to time in one game where I took the win because I survived till the clock was called. Only once. So if the ratio is somewhere like 1 in 8/9/10 games... is this really an issue? When does it become an issue that 'must' be dealt with by a massive systemic change?

Is the sky really falling? I think that's the problem I see. This is crying foul before we really assess what percentage of the population of competitive X-Wing is even really bothered by this.

Something I've learned over the years is that often the people who are upset about an issue and complain loudly indicate that the issue is widespread and legion. More often than not, somewhere between %2 and %5 of people are actually upset about the issue, and the vast majority are either unaffected, feel differently, or are indifferent to the issue.

I don't mean to minimize, but are we sure that Partial Points, or any fix, is really necessary? Perhaps if we go through the Regional season and it becomes obvious that winner after winner utilized a timed win due to their 60/40 list multiple times to get their win, and then it happens at Nationals, and then it happens at internationals, then maybe I might listen.

I'm still not in favour of even spending too much time considering massive systemic changes to the game. I'd rather people focus on looking for ways to build lists that minimize the 60/40 phenomenon and concentrate on playing the game more efficiently.

Jacob

P.s... that Chewbo list is a 53/47 split. I like it, but I probably won't be playing with it much in the future unless I can't get the time to practice with the list I do want to take to Regionals...

The difficult of the calculation isn't an issue. It could be the easiest calculation on the face of the planet and someone is going to find a way to screw it up. Then when you add 30+ players in a tournament, the chances for errors increase dramatically. Then, who's going to be doing the calculations? For time, you would probably want to rely on the players to do the initial calculations, but who's going to check to make sure they're correct?

If it's on the TO's, imagine the TO having to enter the remaining health of every ship in every list after every round. That would take some time.

Firstly, MoV already requires calculations. They're simpler, but required.

Secondly, yes, people will get calculations wrong. They probably get MoV wrong too. As for what checks the calcuations? If the result of this calculation determines whether you advance to the next round or not, you're not going to just leave it to your opponent. And the likelihood of both players screwing up is let's just say not the highest.

Is it more demanding? Yes, but I don't think it's demanding enough to offset the benefit of killing the artifical incentives the clock gives to list building.

Yes, but partial points require MANY more calculations. If there is a disagreement, the TO would have to be the final arbiter. With current MOV, the TO would just have to calculate the points for each ship that is dead. With the new system, the TO would have to calculate the points for every injured or dead ship to get points. During the course of the tournament, all of this can add up to a significant amount of time. Then you have tournaments that run longer, or tournaments that need shorter rounds due to hard cutoffs.

The current MOV system does have problems and does need some type of adjustment. Whatever adjustment it needs though needs to be very, very easy. Something that can be done very quickly with very little margin of error. I just don't think that the forum's current iteration of partial points is that system.

For another point, let's say we have bbbbz vs Dash/Corran. Dash is 58 points. All of the b's are heavily damaged but no ships were destroyed. Dash is killed but Corran is at full health. The Dash/Corran build would actually win without destroying a ship. Is that what you want to reward? Granted, this is an outlying hypothetical just to illustrate a point. Every system that anyone comes up with is going to have problems. We just have to decide what kind of problems we want to live with at the end of the day.

I think the example you provide with Corran/Dash vs 4BZ provides a valid example case where partial points could be problematic. Personally, I was curious where the breakpoint for this particular example lay. So, I ran the numbers:

1 Health Point on a Blue = 2.75 points (22/8)

1 Health Point on the Z95 = 3 Points (12/4)

1 Health Point on Dash = 5.8 Points (58/10)

1 Health Point on Corran = 8.4 Points (42/5)

If Dash and Corran deal 20 points of damage to the Bs alone (No damage on the Z95) before Dash explodes and time is called they lose with an MoV of 58-55. At 21 points of damage on the Bs Dash/Corran tie as the MoV would be 58-57.75 and rounding seems like the thing to do in this case. At 22 Points of damage dealt to the Bs alone Dash/Corran would win with an MoV of 61(60.5)-58.

Now, from the competitive, emotional side of my brain, I think I'd be a bit annoyed that I lost a game that close despite having taken a ship down while losing none myself. However, looking at the points lost on my side, if the Dash/Corran player had focused his fire more, I'd be down at least two Bs and either the Z95 or a bunch of damage spread over the remaining Bs. Furthermore, in an un-timed match, I'm not sure 4Bs with heavy damage and a Z95 could take down a 42 point Corran, especially if the latter has R2D2.

Now personally, I like the idea of the partial points, especially since it is a better indicator of how close a game is when time is called. However, this particular case, which could be made for other swarm lists, does seem like it could be a problem, but I think the problem may be one more of strategy, specifically, whether the optimal strategy might shift from focusing fire on a single ship, to sniping away at a list from Range 3, aiming to get a single damage through while denying as many shots as you can from your opponent. I can't really see that strategy being more effective than focusing fire on a single ship and simply removing it from the board, but as a tactic, it will still be useful and viable, as it is now, given the RAC and Whisper/Fel builds out there..

Partial points would potentially change the optimal strategy in the very last round after time has been called. In this case you want to get as many points as possible. If you can take a 1HP ship off the board, then this may still be worth it if it is lower PS than you and can shoot back at you (thereby negating points that they could score back on you). But if the 1HP ship has no arc, or has already fired this round, then you might be better off taking off more hit points on a different ship entirely.

So this would change tactics slightly. But it should only affect the final round of combat after time has been called. Otherwise in general the optimal strategy is still to remove ships off the board - that still scores points for you, and it prevents their ships from shooting back and scoring MoV on you in return.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

When a ship is damaged, lose a shield/draw a card, and add a point token for that ship to the pilot card. At the end, add all the tokens on non-destroyed ships to the ship destroyed points. Functionally it is really the same as doing the math, but it puts all multiplication/division at the front, and only once. After that, it is just adding. Would take a lot of tokens though.

Another idea, right up FFG's alley because they love dials - I know I have seen computational dials before that combined a number of dials stacked. You turn a few dials to the values you want and a window/cutout displays the corresponding calculated value. One could be designed (maybe?) where you turn one dial to your ship's point value, another to its HP, and another to its current hp value and displayed in a corresponding window is the points scored for damage. I'm certain the number of results that would be required couldn't fit on reasonable dials though, some some design concessions would be needed just to lower the number of possible results (round starting ship point value to the nearest 5, separate dials for separate hp values, etc)

The downsides of more required materials are obvious.

Let's call these idea seeds to maybe grow into a good idea by someone else, because it isn't fully thought out.

Except its not just the final round this changes... The whole game changes. Personally? All this will do is switch 2 ship lists out for tanky 4-6 ship lists like 4BZ. You are trading one "evil" for another.

If Dash and Corran deal 20 points of damage to the Bs alone (No damage on the Z95) before Dash explodes and time is called they lose with an MoV of 58-55. At 21 points of damage on the Bs Dash/Corran tie as the MoV would be 58-57.75 and rounding seems like the thing to do in this case. At 22 Points of damage dealt to the Bs alone Dash/Corran would win with an MoV of 61(60.5)-58.

B-wings have eight hit points. 22 points of damage is enough to kill two B-wings and leave a third on two hit points. For you to deal 22 points of damage to 4 B-wings you'd have to hit them each for five or six damage but not finish off any of them.

Is that a probable scenario?

Except its not just the final round this changes... The whole game changes. Personally? All this will do is switch 2 ship lists out for tanky 4-6 ship lists like 4BZ. You are trading one "evil" for another.

Because? I don't see how this favours six ship lists over two. It just doesn't favour two over six.

As I said before, I've yet to see an example for how this changes mentality at all versus an untimed game where you're playing to annihilation.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

When a ship is damaged, lose a shield/draw a card, and add a point token for that ship to the pilot card. At the end, add all the tokens on non-destroyed ships to the ship destroyed points. Functionally it is really the same as doing the math, but it puts all multiplication/division at the front, and only once. After that, it is just adding. Would take a lot of tokens though.

Another idea, right up FFG's alley because they love dials - I know I have seen computational dials before that combined a number of dials stacked. You turn a few dials to the values you want and a window/cutout displays the corresponding calculated value. One could be designed (maybe?) where you turn one dial to your ship's point value, another to its HP, and another to its current hp value and displayed in a corresponding window is the points scored for damage. I'm certain the number of results that would be required couldn't fit on reasonable dials though, some some design concessions would be needed just to lower the number of possible results (round starting ship point value to the nearest 5, separate dials for separate hp values, etc)

The downsides of more required materials are obvious.

Let's call these idea seeds to maybe grow into a good idea by someone else, because it isn't fully thought out.

The simplest way would be to not do any math until the game ends.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

Mr. Froggies suggested this too, it isn't a bad idea. The main benefit is that it is easy to do the math because you only have to do a divide once at the start of the tournament for each ship, which can be part of your squad registration.

Also, this:

Except its not just the final round this changes... The whole game changes. Personally? All this will do is switch 2 ship lists out for tanky 4-6 ship lists like 4BZ. You are trading one "evil" for another.

Context? Was this in reply to my post above?

Except its not just the final round this changes... The whole game changes. Personally? All this will do is switch 2 ship lists out for tanky 4-6 ship lists like 4BZ. You are trading one "evil" for another.

Sounds like it will change it to where people build lists based upon what can best balance dealing damage with avoiding/repelling/absorbing damage. That sounds kind of how it should be.

The ships you'd target for the highest points reward are the same you'd target under any other system: the ones that are worth the most. Target priority is unchanged: you kill the most valuable ships. Whether the points are all or nothing or bundled or you get a percentage of it based on how much of its health you took down doesn't change that.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

When a ship is damaged, lose a shield/draw a card, and add a point token for that ship to the pilot card. At the end, add all the tokens on non-destroyed ships to the ship destroyed points. Functionally it is really the same as doing the math, but it puts all multiplication/division at the front, and only once. After that, it is just adding. Would take a lot of tokens though.

Another idea, right up FFG's alley because they love dials - I know I have seen computational dials before that combined a number of dials stacked. You turn a few dials to the values you want and a window/cutout displays the corresponding calculated value. One could be designed (maybe?) where you turn one dial to your ship's point value, another to its HP, and another to its current hp value and displayed in a corresponding window is the points scored for damage. I'm certain the number of results that would be required couldn't fit on reasonable dials though, some some design concessions would be needed just to lower the number of possible results (round starting ship point value to the nearest 5, separate dials for separate hp values, etc)

The downsides of more required materials are obvious.

Let's call these idea seeds to maybe grow into a good idea by someone else, because it isn't fully thought out.

The simplest way would be to not do any math until the game ends.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

Mr. Froggies suggested this too, it isn't a bad idea. The main benefit is that it is easy to do the math because you only have to do a divide once at the start of the tournament for each ship, which can be part of your squad registration.