4. if Partial Points rewards keeping your health intact, what then would be the desire to not fly high agility swarms? Wasn't it not to long ago that swarms dominated the meta?

2. Someone else suggested that there would be no reason to ever fly a decimator, which bleeds health and therefore points to the opponent. If all ships had identical attack, agility, hull and shields I would easily concede this, or even close enough as makes no difference, but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward.

Once you normalize points per shot for glass cannon:tank ratio, PS bid, turret/dial and upgrades, all the ships end up being pretty tightly clustered. Just because a ship has low standard deviation on its durability doesn't mean it's bad or won't get taken. It just means it is consistent. And consistency wins tournaments. What all Fat Ships will lose is their massive MoV advantage in untimed games, and also their even larger victory condition advantage in timed games.

So what you're saying is that Partial Points is going to have an impact on the game, one that will adjust how we play, which ships we take, and what upgrades get applied. That's still a major Meta swing, and I don't like the idea that a major meta swing will happen AGAIN because of a systemic scoring change.

Are we also saying that there would be no unintended negative consequences? Currently I don't see a tonne of specific ships coming into play in the Meta, including the X-Wing (the game is called X-Wing... this is a problem) as well as some scum ships and bombers and defenders and such. Is this really going to change with Partial Points or is there another solution that has yet to be discussed of explored.

Because all of this relies on Data, and the clarity of Data is a result of recording data accurately over a greater and greater timeframe, the question I have is this:

What's to say this solution is a reaction to not enough data over too short a timeframe?

What I mean is, and MJ you've said this directly, the real question is how many times does the point fortress get the win/modified win because of the 'get ahead and run' tactic? How often does it really happen that a 75 minute game is not enough time to play out what would eventually happen?

Yes, players have wins in their pockets because of the MoV strategies we object to, but how many and how big an impact is still being guessed at. Is there potential the the issue is smaller than you've suggested because of the lack of longterm and sufficient data?

Jacob

Thanks Tie Pilot. You've summed up your arguments handily while ignoring my points and others. This is the condescension I'm talking about from the Partial Points advocates. Please listen and be willing to concede points, otherwise we're all just talking at the air.

Do you think it would be at all possible to not treat us all as some single entity that you believe you've got a psychological profile on? You've done this several times, and in most cases, I do not fit your caricature of me even though I am a "partial points advocate".

Example - I've conceded that the last hull point should be worth more than the first. Numerous partial points advocates have openly acknowledge that the system is not perfect, just better. In another thread, I argued with MajorJuggler (can you believe it!?!), another partial points advocate over the complexity of his proposed system and proposed a system of my own. He made compelling points and I eventually conceded that my suggestions had significant issues and came into closer agreement with him. MajorJuggler has significantly eased his position that the math is easy stuff anyone can do from what I can tell. People do adjust their positions.

Thanks Tie Pilot. You've summed up your arguments handily while ignoring my points and others. This is the condescension I'm talking about from the Partial Points advocates. Please listen and be willing to concede points, otherwise we're all just talking at the air.

Do you think it would be at all possible to not treat us all as some single entity that you believe you've got a psychological profile on? You've done this several times, and in most cases, I do not fit your caricature of me even though I am a "partial points advocate".

Example - I've conceded that the last hull point should be worth more than the first. Numerous partial points advocates have openly acknowledge that the system is not perfect, just better. In another thread, I argued with MajorJuggler, another partial points advocate over the complexity of his proposed system. He made compelling points and I eventually conceded that my suggestions had significant issues and came into closer agreement with him.

Great point, and my apologies. You and others have conceded and made great discussion happen. I shouldn't do exactly as I am asking would not be done to me, so please accept my recantation and my sincere apology.

Jacob

(previous post edited to say 'some' instead of 'the')

I run a X-Wing league that is scored based on MoV. If I give everyone a heads up a week in advance I could change the scoring system to use partial points. Or for that matter just keep two sets of books as it were.

That would give 4-12 games every other week of real world trials to see how it goes.

Only thing I'd need, is the method people would like to see tested.

I run a X-Wing league that is scored based on MoV. If I give everyone a heads up a week in advance I could change the scoring system to use partial points. Or for that matter just keep two sets of books as it were.

That would give 4-12 games every other week of real world trials to see how it goes.

Only thing I'd need, is the method people would like to see tested.

My preference would be half points for at least half a kill. That is, at the moment time is called, if your ship has no more than half of its starting total hit points, your opponent scores half the total value of the ship (rounded down).

A concrete example: Han Solo costs 63 points and has 8 Hull/5 Shields. If he has 7+ hull left at the end of the match, no points are awarded. If he has 1-6 hull left at the end of the match, the opponent gets 31 points. If he's dead, the opponent gets the full value of 63.

Thanks Tie Pilot. You've summed up your arguments handily while ignoring my points and others. This is the condescension I'm talking about from the Partial Points advocates. Please listen and be willing to concede points, otherwise we're all just talking at the air.

Do you think it would be at all possible to not treat us all as some single entity that you believe you've got a psychological profile on? You've done this several times, and in most cases, I do not fit your caricature of me even though I am a "partial points advocate".

Example - I've conceded that the last hull point should be worth more than the first. Numerous partial points advocates have openly acknowledge that the system is not perfect, just better. In another thread, I argued with MajorJuggler, another partial points advocate over the complexity of his proposed system. He made compelling points and I eventually conceded that my suggestions had significant issues and came into closer agreement with him.

Great point, and my apologies. You and others have conceded and made great discussion happen. I shouldn't do exactly as I am asking would not be done to me, so please accept my recantation and my sincere apology.

Jacob

(previous post edited to say 'some' instead of 'the')

Appreciated, thank you.

I run a X-Wing league that is scored based on MoV. If I give everyone a heads up a week in advance I could change the scoring system to use partial points. Or for that matter just keep two sets of books as it were.

That would give 4-12 games every other week of real world trials to see how it goes.

Only thing I'd need, is the method people would like to see tested.

My preference would be half points for at least half a kill. That is, at the moment time is called, if your ship has no more than half of its starting total hit points, your opponent scores half the total value of the ship (rounded down).

A concrete example: Han Solo costs 63 points and has 8 Hull/5 Shields. If he has 7+ hull left at the end of the match, no points are awarded. If he has 1-6 hull left at the end of the match, the opponent gets 31 points. If he's dead, the opponent gets the full value of 63.

Interesting.

So then, for a Tie Swarm example, 2 damage on a tie academy pilot is worth 6 points? Two damage on an Obsidian is then worth 6.5 points? What happens with the half points - round up or down?

Jacob

No. It is a mathematical certainty that the current system will always have a strong bias towards Point Fortresses regardless of what future upgrades are used. If anything it may only get worse with new releases of ships and upgrade cards as we get more ships capable of being Point Fortresses, and existing Point Fortresses gain new capabilities.

MJ, I am not a math whiz, but I see that there's potential out there for a more moderate solution that rewards the modified win less or at least rewards the modified loss more. What impact would that have on the Meta prep? If people understood that going a full 75 minutes would be required and that they would still be giving up points to their opponents even with a modified win, what kind of change would that make?

Yes, players have wins in their pockets because of the MoV strategies we object to, but how many and how big an impact is still being guessed at. Is there potential the the issue is smaller than you've suggested because of the lack of longterm and sufficient data?

It is hard to get comprehensive data one way or the other since remaining hit points is not recorded. From anecdotal evidence, for Regionals with a Top 8 cut, it typically appears to be a factor in at least one elimination matchup (obviously not the last, with the exception of 2014 Canadian Nationals).

I run a X-Wing league that is scored based on MoV. If I give everyone a heads up a week in advance I could change the scoring system to use partial points. Or for that matter just keep two sets of books as it were.

That would give 4-12 games every other week of real world trials to see how it goes.

Only thing I'd need, is the method people would like to see tested.

My preference would be half points for at least half a kill. That is, at the moment time is called, if your ship has no more than half of its starting total hit points, your opponent scores half the total value of the ship (rounded down).

A concrete example: Han Solo costs 63 points and has 8 Hull/5 Shields. If he has 7+ hull left at the end of the match, no points are awarded. If he has 1-6 hull left at the end of the match, the opponent gets 31 points. If he's dead, the opponent gets the full value of 63.

Interesting.

So then, for a Tie Swarm example, 2 damage on a tie academy pilot is worth 6 points? Two damage on an Obsidian is then worth 6.5 points? What happens with the half points - round up or down?

Jacob

You just pick one when making the new rules and apply it across the board. I would personally go with always rounding down, as it leaves a point or two "in the bank" and encourages making the kill, but it's an easily solved issue whichever way you go.

I run a X-Wing league that is scored based on MoV. If I give everyone a heads up a week in advance I could change the scoring system to use partial points. Or for that matter just keep two sets of books as it were.

That would give 4-12 games every other week of real world trials to see how it goes.

Only thing I'd need, is the method people would like to see tested.

My preference would be half points for at least half a kill. That is, at the moment time is called, if your ship has no more than half of its starting total hit points, your opponent scores half the total value of the ship (rounded down).

A concrete example: Han Solo costs 63 points and has 8 Hull/5 Shields. If he has 7+ hull left at the end of the match, no points are awarded. If he has 1-6 hull left at the end of the match, the opponent gets 31 points. If he's dead, the opponent gets the full value of 63.

Interesting.

So then, for a Tie Swarm example, 2 damage on a tie academy pilot is worth 6 points? Two damage on an Obsidian is then worth 6.5 points? What happens with the half points - round up or down?

Jacob

I emphasized the relevant parts of my post. Two damage on an Obsidian Squadron Pilot would also be worth 6 points (13/2, rounded down).

The significant drawback about half-points is that it still materially encourages Fat Ships. And when you have that 62 point vs 60 point Fat Ship matchup, the Fatter Ship is still almost always going to win when it goes to time anyway. It doesn't really fix the problem, it just happens to be relatively easy to compute because dividing by 2 is relatively easy.

The significant drawback about half-points is that it still materially encourages Fat Ships. And when you have that 62 point vs 60 point Fat Ship matchup, the Fatter Ship is still almost always going to win when it goes to time anyway. It doesn't really fix the problem, it just happens to be relatively easy to compute because dividing by 2 is relatively easy.

Of course. But it's a step in the right direction and, as you say, is very easy to compute. It might have to be enough. It certainly couldn't be any worse than the current situation.

So what you're saying is that Partial Points is going to have an impact on the game, one that will adjust how we play, which ships we take, and what upgrades get applied. That's still a major Meta swing, and I don't like the idea that a major meta swing will happen AGAIN because of a systemic scoring change.

Emphasis mine.

That's fine to have that opinion. Out of curiosity, have you played competitively in Store Championships this season, and plan on playing at Regionals?

There is a balance between having a healthy meta and having a changing meta, and changing it too much can be unhealthy in and of itself. But leaving underlying issues unresolved is also very bad for the long term health of the game.

What I mean is, and MJ you've said this directly, the real question is how many times does the point fortress get the win/modified win because of the 'get ahead and run' tactic? How often does it really happen that a 75 minute game is not enough time to play out what would eventually happen?

We have data on how often 75 minute games go to time, which you can check it out over on List Juggler. It looks like something around 15% to 20% of games are going to time.

Yes, players have wins in their pockets because of the MoV strategies we object to, but how many and how big an impact is still being guessed at. Is there potential the the issue is smaller than you've suggested because of the lack of longterm and sufficient data?

It is hard to get comprehensive data one way or the other since remaining hit points is not recorded. From anecdotal evidence, for Regionals with a Top 8 cut, it typically appears to be a factor in at least one elimination matchup (obviously not the last, with the exception of 2014 Canadian Nationals).

I have played competitively and plan to go to a regional in July. This year will likely be my first Internationals though, but I won't be able to make Nationals because they'll likely be in Ontario. Keep me in mind if you will, cause I'd love to buy you a coffee and chat in Minnie this year.

The question isn't how often games go to time, the question is "how many times does a fortress list go to time and win when it would lose in an untimed match?" Certainly games go to time, but it's not only because a fat ship is surviving on a little bit of health. Is it one in 100 games where it would make a difference? 1 in 10? We are pointing at some regional events where one guy made it happen (the UK one that's been mentioned) but is the List Juggler data a complete representation or is it just a specific set of metas?

(I still haven't figured out how to upload the data from the tournament held here locally and would like to, so if someone could point me to how that's done)

Would that Anecdotal evidence be fixed in another way than Partial Points? As in, what if the games were 80 minutes and the +1/+2 for modified loss/draw situation.

My point is that I'm not sure that Mathematical Models are a complete picture of the game, nor does it specify the end of a continually growing game in both content and strategy development.

Jacob

I have played competitively and plan to go to a regional in July. This year will likely be my first Internationals though, but I won't be able to make Nationals because they'll likely be in Ontario. Keep me in mind if you will, cause I'd love to buy you a coffee and chat in Minnie this year.

Sadly I won't be able to make it to Worlds this year. I will have to take you up on that some time though.

They're not intended to be a complete picture of the game. But they're darned good at analyzing what they are meant for. That applies to both the jousting MathWing stuff, as well as the effects of MoV scoring.

The question isn't how often games go to time, the question is "how many times does a fortress list go to time and win when it would lose in an untimed match?" Certainly games go to time, but it's not only because a fat ship is surviving on a little bit of health. Is it one in 100 games where it would make a difference? 1 in 10? We are pointing at some regional events where one guy made it happen (the UK one that's been mentioned) but is the List Juggler data a complete representation or is it just a specific set of metas?

Anecdotal evidence, but it is probably around half of the close games. Again we can't know for sure without getting the hit points remaining. It's probably something around 1 in every 10 games. I watched it happen live on Twitch at the WV Regionals in the Top 8, it happened at Canadian Nationals 2014, and it was apparently a keystone strategy for the winner of the Milton UK Regionals this last weekend.

The question isn't how often games go to time, the question is "how many times does a fortress list go to time and win when it would lose in an untimed match?" Certainly games go to time, but it's not only because a fat ship is surviving on a little bit of health.

Point fort. "Fortress List" is something, very, very different and far more detested.

Would that Anecdotal evidence be fixed in another way than Partial Points? As in, what if the games were 80 minutes and the +1/+2 for modified loss/draw situation.

Wouldn't matter. You just play slower throughout the game to burn the additional 5 minutes. And if you are guaranteed to outright lose the game if you engage, then the relative scoring is irrelevant.

True to a point. Eventually you reach a point where you can only stall so much. The real issue that is often raised is that increasing round lengths makes for a logistical problem, especially given that tourneys already run 12+ hours.

I have played competitively and plan to go to a regional in July. This year will likely be my first Internationals though, but I won't be able to make Nationals because they'll likely be in Ontario. Keep me in mind if you will, cause I'd love to buy you a coffee and chat in Minnie this year.

Sadly I won't be able to make it to Worlds this year. I will have to take you up on that some time though.

The question isn't how often games go to time, the question is "how many times does a fortress list go to time and win when it would lose in an untimed match?" Certainly games go to time, but it's not only because a fat ship is surviving on a little bit of health. Is it one in 100 games where it would make a difference? 1 in 10? We are pointing at some regional events where one guy made it happen (the UK one that's been mentioned) but is the List Juggler data a complete representation or is it just a specific set of metas?

Anecdotal evidence, but it is probably around half of the close games. Again we can't know for sure without getting the hit points remaining. It's probably something around 1 in every 10 games. I watched it happen live on Twitch at the WV Regionals in the Top 8, it happened at Canadian Nationals 2014, and it was apparently a keystone strategy for the winner of the Milton UK Regionals this last weekend.

(I still haven't figured out how to upload the data from the tournament held here locally and would like to, so if someone could point me to how that's done)

What software did you use to run the tournament, and do you still have the squad sheets? Cryodex has a "export *.JSON" option that you can upload directly to List Juggler. You will need to enter other fields on the website.

Would that Anecdotal evidence be fixed in another way than Partial Points? As in, what if the games were 80 minutes and the +1/+2 for modified loss/draw situation.

Wouldn't matter. You just play slower throughout the game to burn the additional 5 minutes. And if you are guaranteed to outright lose the game if you engage, then the relative scoring is irrelevant.

My point is that I'm not sure that Mathematical Models are a complete picture of the game, nor does it specify the end of a continually growing game in both content and strategy development.

They're not intended to be a complete picture of the game. But they're darned good at analyzing what they are meant for. That applies to both the jousting MathWing stuff, as well as the effects of MoV scoring.

MJ, just wondering if you have a source regarding the Milton UK reference. I saw the post on TC where one of his opponents referenced a game that went to time in that manner, but that seemed more about going to time while ahead rather than point fortressing. Just curious.

The letter "i" may randomly disappear throughout this post. The key is failing. I'll endeavour to edit any missing "i"s I spot back in.

Please listen and be willing to concede points, otherwise we're all just talking at the air.

I'll concede when I'm wrong. I'm not going to tell you you're correct when you're not.

1. MoV is not being put forward. It's what's in place. SoS was in place before, and it's been replaced, so it's not being put forward either. Please don't put words in peoples mouths.

The proposal is that Partial Points should replace MoV on the grounds that it's a superior system. Arguing against that is arguing that it should not. If PP is better than MoV, it should replace it, therefore, to argue that PP should not replace MoV is to argue that PP is not superior to MoV.

All in all, that's an incredibly hypocritical statement when your entire rebuttal seems to be based around me or anyone else claiming that PP is perfect. This is not true, we are simply asserting that it's better than MoV.

2. Simple maths on the Decimator? Are you saying that it's simple math that a Decimator is a bad choice? You gave one example of a 5 tie swarm and a 60 point Decimator - however that's not the entirety of the ship. I can't see a single reason to take that Decimator over 5 ties in a competitive environment given that I have no ability to mitigate the damage done. If the point of taking a ship is to do damage and survive with as much hull as possible (as opposed to taking out ships) there is little to no reason to take a Decimator.

How is a Decimator a poor choice under PP? It's no worse a choice than it is in Untimed. It may be easy it hit but it's got sixteen hit points to chew through. Its 40 points are split sixteen ways, a hit on a Decimator under PP is worth 2.5 points. A hit on the agility based point equivalent (an elite TIE phantom) is worth 10 points a hit. It's easy to hit the Decimator but you need to hit it more for the same reward. Ships of equal cost are equally rewarding targets.

As for why you'd take it in PP, why would you take it in an Untimed game? Same reasons apply here. If the only reason you'd take a Decimator is to win on the MoV clock, then yes, you'll be less likely to take it, but it isn't disadvantaged relative to those TIEs.

And the point of the game is still to take out the enemy's ships while minimising your own losses, PP simply takes into account how close your ships are to death.

Removing MoV simply removes the point fort meta distortion. PP doesn't incentivise anything that isn't incentivised in Untimed.

3. Again, you keep saying 'the burden of proof is on the opponent.' To say that I need to 'suggest a better system' than Partial points otherwise I'm just saying that status quo is fine' isn't a fruitful discussion. You're just saying, 'come up with something better' or else I'm not worth listening to. Please don't make this discussion come down to that sort of line of thinking. I would suggest that the burden of proof for advocating Partial Points is still with those advocating Partial Points. My point is that people have suggested it to solve the problem, but yet the problem would still exist in the future, albeit in a perhaps more reduced form. The question still exists then - if it doesn't actually fully solve the problem, is it really a solution?

It's the truth. If you're pointing out holes in PP that also exist in MoV and SoS and not providing an alternative that does not have those holes, then you're simply wasting everyone's time: you're not providing any way in which PP is weaker than the other systems.

What I'm saying is that we've made a case for why Partial Points is better than MoV and SoS. If you are disagreeing with that then logically you are either saying that either MoV or SoS is equal to PP or that MoV or SoS is superior. If you aren't, then what are you saying? That it's worse than Untimed? It's not possible to be better than Untimed at modelling Untimed. What PP is is better than MoV.

"The question still exists then - if it doesn't actually fully solve the problem, is it really a solution?"
If it solves the problem more than the current solution, yes. A perfect solution is not possible. Why would you keep an inferior solution?

4. Here's a problem example for the future, one that you might be ignoring - if Partial Points rewards keeping your health intact, what then would be the desire to not fly high agility swarms? Wasn't it not to long ago that swarms dominated the meta? And now we've swung fully the other way, correct? Meta swings need to stop being so fully back and forth. With Partial Points, the advantage is given to ships that either can mitigate incoming damage with high agility, or simply keep themselves from ever being damage by constantly running. By implementing Partial Points there is the assumption that it will reduce or eliminate the 'point fortresses.' If we're not going to be flying the point fortresses because of the 1 in X situation where this could be an issue, what other meta swings might we see? It's not Murphy's Law to ask the question - have you thought it all out? Have you seen down the road far enough to be so certain that this solution is fool proof? What if the Meta swings all the way back to Swarms again. Is that what we want to see happen?

It doesn't need to be completely foolproof, it needs to be more foolproof than MoV.

All I can say to the example is good luck getting through a game with a TIE swarm without losing a single TIE fighter. If green dice were highly effective at keeping ships intact the B-wing would not be the ship of choice over the X-wing.

Green dice are no invunerable shield, they're incredibly fickle and unreliable. In addition, the hits you do punch through their dice are worth that much more because high agility ships have fewer points relative to their point cost. The green dice could keep a ship intact throughout the whole game where a ship relying on hit points would be badly beaten up, but they could also turn on you and have that ship die in one shot. Over the entire data set, they average out.

It's easy to hit a B-wing, but you need to hit it a lot more times than an interceptor for the same reward.

Green dice in lieu of health simply increases the variance of a ship's lifetime on the board, in both ways. It doesn't grant an inherent advantage. Partial MoV improves high agility in the sense that it removes the distorted advantage MoV gives point forts, but it doesn't then grant an advantage to high agility. High agility runs on a higher variance: it'll sometimes survive longer than a health ship would and sometimes survive less.

5. "Partial Points is better at Modelling the current state of the board than MoV is." I'm not convinced. You take it as a given, and I don't see it as a completely arbitrarily 2+2=4 solution like you. I don't see it, and nobody has taken the time to answer the questions I'm asking, like 'what about the stats of the ships, the abilities of the ships, the upgrades attached to the ships, and the other factors that take into account the potential of the game.

Everyone is answering your questions repeatedly.

Read the line you quoted again. "Partial Points is better at Modelling the current state of the board than MoV is."

MoV does not take those details into account. SoS does not take those details into account. Therefore, I don't see your point.

If you don't compare to another system, you're then arguing relative to Untimed, which is pointless because we cannot have every game untimed: otherwise we would.

Nobody is saying it's a perfect system, we're making a case for it being better than MoV.

6. It seems you ignored my final paragraph. I'm interested in enforcing the 75 minute time limit and exploring a point given for a modified loss. I think it would have a less drastic impact on the game, and it would potentially solve the issue that you and the partial point people are up in arms about. Why do you keep suggesting that I need to propose some major change to the game? This is an isolated issue, one that may have been blown out of proportion as the meta adjusts to keep itself in balance, and it ignores the potential for future game elements that may make this a non-issue. I'm fine with staying pat, but if the issue needs to be addressed I'd rather see small, or potentially tiny adjustments rather than large systemic changes.

I responded to both of those. They're not particularly relevant to the resolution system when the game goes to time.

I'm not suggesting you think up some wild new system, I'm saying that to argue against Partial Points you need to argue relatively: its weaknesses compared to another system. Otherwise you're comparing it to Untimed games, a state in which any system, PP, MoV, SoS, MajorJuggler's DeLorean, will fail.

You haven't actually addressed my arguments and thoughts. You seem not to be hearing me. Please, take some time and ponder my objections in the post above, then simply say, "ok, I hear you" and then move on. That's all I'm asking, not for an argument or a shouting match as to each others ideas.

Jacob

I have.

Your argument seems to be "if the new system is not perfect, stick with the old one." Nobody has said PP is perfect. It's impossible to make a perfect system, you can only make one that's better than the current one. And MoV has serious issues with it: MajorJuggler has posted plenty of tournament data to demonstrate it.

Your other argument is "some other system might be better," to which I again ask, what other system? To compare PP to an alternative, you need an alternative to compare it to, and if you don't provide one how are we meant to do that? If you want us to look at an alternative you need to give us an alternative to look at, otherwise it's an impossible request.

Several months of data is statistically significant, but more important, there is a rigorous mathematical model that predicts the prevalence of Fat Lists. Analogy: I didn't need months of playtesting to accurately predict that the generic [fill in ship name here] would never be used competitively, because I have a pretty accurate mathematical model.

Is any X-Wing specific model or data truly needed to support the reason Fat Lists are good and will continue to be good?

Seems pretty self evident that a person that is able to score in small increments will often have an advantage over a person that is only able to score only when they reach a large increment.

It somewhat reminds me of a boardgame I played once called Lords of Vegas. Everyone could score in one point increments at the start of the game. As you worked your way up the scoreboard, however, you could only score if you scored at least 2 points. Then later it bumped to 3 and so on. It served as a mechanism to allow players who were behind a chance to catch up, since it is more frequent and easier to reach a 1 point threshold than a 3 or 4 point threshold.

MJ, just wondering if you have a source regarding the Milton UK reference. I saw the post on TC where one of his opponents referenced a game that went to time in that manner, but that seemed more about going to time while ahead rather than point fortressing. Just curious.

"I know a guy that knows a guy..." Continuous ongoing Facebook private group conversation with some of the NOVA squadron guys. So no direct citation and you can take it with a grain of salt. If we actually got the results up on List Juggler then we would at least be able to see for sure how many games went to time.

Several months of data is statistically significant, but more important, there is a rigorous mathematical model that predicts the prevalence of Fat Lists. Analogy: I didn't need months of playtesting to accurately predict that the generic [fill in ship name here] would never be used competitively, because I have a pretty accurate mathematical model.

Is any X-Wing specific model or data truly needed to support the reason Fat Lists are good and will continue to be good?

It is pretty self-evident, but you can at least quantify the effect with relative ease as well.

I get what you are saying about Decimators comparing to high agility-high value ships Tie Pilot, and I agree that it is correct. But I do think there is a lurking advantage for low value high agility things like Academy Pilots over something like Decimators possibly hidden in partial scoring.

5 TIE fighters at 60 points vs a 60 point Decimator seems like an issue for strictly linear partial scoring. They have almost equivalent total HP - 15 vs 16, so the points scored for a point of damage is roughly the same. However, the TIE fighters hide all of those HP behind 3 evade dice and so give them up less easily, fickle green dice or not. In addition to that, spreading that HP over numerous ships leads to quite a bit of inefficiency in overkill damage for the opponent (when you need to do 1 damage to kill a ship and do 3, for example). The lone Decimator gives up very efficient points to the TIEs on the other hand, with only one possible overkill shot compared to the possible 5 overkill shots against TIEs. Most booms and kabooms against Decimators equate straight into points. Many booms and kabooms against TIEs are wasted on overkill that could have been 4 points each against a Deci.

Aside from the math hurdle, I think if you were looking for the problem that needs to be resolved for the best possible partial scoring system, this would be the place to look.

Thinking about this makes me think that something more akin to a 1/2 damage, 1/2 points system is not as big a compromise as we think, and perhaps the better system. TIEs would give up points less easily because of agility, while at the same time giving up points a little more easily due to smaller thresholds (only 2 damage needed to score something). Conversely, large ships would give it up less easily due to bigger steps (7 or 8 damage to score), and at the same time more easily due to low agility.

A 60 point Decimator is spending a huge chunk of its points on the PS bid, upgrades, a turret, pilot abilities, and higher base attack than a TIE Fighter. When you normalize for all that, then the "reward" for shooting at a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter is roughly on par. Or, equivalently, if you bring something that is a glass cannon and loaded to the gills with upgrades and is paying for cool stuff like a turret and/or a fantastic dial, then yes -- your opponent is rewarded by taking out your High Value Asset. Which is how it plays out tactically in an untimed game as well.

I get what you are saying about Decimators comparing to high agility-high value ships Tie Pilot, and I agree that it is correct. But I do think there is a lurking advantage for low value high agility things like Academy Pilots over something like Decimators possibly hidden in partial scoring.

Large ships give up points less easily because each of their hit points is worth less.

The reason green dice don't grant an advantage over hull is firstly because the hull of high agilty, low health ships is worth more than it is for high health ships. Whether it's a 40pt Decimator or a 40pt Phantom you knocked to half health, whether you dealt 8 damage through 0 agility or 2 damage through 4 agility you still get 20 points.

Green dice are an effective shield against damage but not a perfect one. It's harder to get damage through but they have far fewer hit points to compensate. They take less damage cards but those are worth more points. You can average durabilites for ships as Juggler does and blend agility and hull into a single value.

What green dice has that hull doesn't is variance: if your green dice are hot your TIE interceptor can ignore countless powerful hits. But variance works both ways. The Decimator is reliable. An equivalently costed ship based on green dice may last longer, but it may also die faster.

It all balances out as it does in the untimed game. It's Stealth Device versus Hull Upgrade.

MJ, just wondering if you have a source regarding the Milton UK reference. I saw the post on TC where one of his opponents referenced a game that went to time in that manner, but that seemed more about going to time while ahead rather than point fortressing. Just curious.

"I know a guy that knows a guy..." Continuous ongoing Facebook private group conversation with some of the NOVA squadron guys. So no direct citation and you can take it with a grain of salt. If we actually got the results up on List Juggler then we would at least be able to see for sure how many games went to time.