My goal with this proposal is to blunt the tournament effectiveness of the current meta staples of Fat Han, RAC, etc.

This proposal would only apply to large-base ships: YT-1300, YT-2400, VT49 Decimator, Aggressor (edit) still alive at the end of the match (and huge too, I suppose); all scoring of small-based other ships and destroyed ships would remain unchanged.

Partial points would apply to hull damage only.

All large-based-ship pilots would provide a fixed number of points per each point of damage applied to hull at the end of the game. This number ignores upgrades.

partial_points_per_hull = int(round(pilot_cost / total_hull))

I like this system for several reasons:

- It's simple. There's no long division to take place at list building time, and there's nothing to figure out when you first see your opponent's list. RAC is always worth 4 points per hull.

- It parallels the "the first damage is worth nothing" aspect of small ships by ignoring damage done to shields when handing out points. Opponents are still required to commit to damaging a ship to gain an MoV advantage.

- It's restrained, in that there will typically be a large chunk of MoV awarded for actually doing the last point of damage (RAC at 1 hull: 44 points; 0 hull: ~65 points).

- It's fluffy. Shields are easier to regenerate than repairing hull.

Here are what he points-per-hull values would be for various ships (not exhaustive, just common stuff):

4 Shields (IOW the 5th damage starts awarding partial MoV):

Patrol Leader: 3 points

Named Decimators: 4 points

Bounty Hunter: 6 points

Scum Boba: 6 points

IG88X: 9 points

5 Shields:

Generic Shuttle: 4 points

Chewie: 5 points

Han: 6 points

Dash: 7 points

Thoughts?

Edit: changing the list of ships this applies to, so that it's more restricted and targeted to the ships that actually end up as point fortresses.

Interesting idea, but with only using the pilot cost, then only counting hull, it seems more complicated than simply:

points = rounddown[ (total cost) * (damage suffered) / (starting total hitpoints) ]

Excluding upgrades from your calculation also inherently encourages Maximum Fatness for those ships anyway, if you are going to take them.

Interesting take on partial points scoring.

I still prefer a half and half approach. If the ship is below half of its total hull/shields but still on the table then your opponent gets half (total including upgrades) points for it.

Put me in the large ship only, half points camp.

While MJ's approach is the most accurate and effective, it requires people to do math in public which is seldom a good idea (even with a calculator handy). The alternative approach here requires a table of point values to be kept, though the math is simpler.

The solution should balance speed, simplicity, accuracy, and effectiveness. At the moment I think half points strikes the best balance.

Interesting idea, but with only using the pilot cost, then only counting hull, it seems more complicated than simply:

points = rounddown[ (total cost) * (damage suffered) / (starting total hitpoints) ]

I disagree about complication, because I think that the general message of "RAC grants 4 MoV per point of hull damage" is pretty simple (even if getting to that point was somewhat more convoluted). It also means that the at-tournament math remains pretty simple.

However, I think that my dissatisfaction with round(cost*damage/hull) is more fundamental.

- I don't think that doing only a single point of damage all game should result in a modified win.

- I don't like the idea that the second-to-last point of damage is worth the same amount as the last.

Both of those are rooted in a gut feeling about what looks like a won match, vs. what was a draw. Being able to limp away with 1 hitpoint should be worth something, and having that something double at 2hp doesn't seem right (there should be incentive to finish the job).

It's entirely possible that my approach isn't aggressive enough, and that getting 44 points for a 1hp RAC isn't enough. I'd love to see some numbers on hitpoints remaining for games that went to time.

To be clear, I think that both suggestions would be an improvement over the status quo.

Excluding upgrades from your calculation also inherently encourages Maximum Fatness for those ships anyway, if you are going to take them.

That's true. Large ships with few upgrades would be at a relative disadvantage. Aside from doomshuttles/decis, though, are those actually a thing?

Put me in the large ship only, half points camp.

While MJ's approach is the most accurate and effective, it requires people to do math in public which is seldom a good idea (even with a calculator handy). The alternative approach here requires a table of point values to be kept, though the math is simpler.

The solution should balance speed, simplicity, accuracy, and effectiveness. At the moment I think half points strikes the best balance.

Doesn't half points require math in public also? I don't mean that snarkily; I really don't understand the distinction between the two.

Doesn't half points require math in public also? I don't mean that snarkily; I really don't understand the distinction between the two.

Not really, as a "half point" value could just be put on future cards. But for current cards, of course, there is a "divide by two" step -- I submit that a single step is much easier than the other suggestions that are multiple step approaches.

Is simple math really so scary?

Doesn't the whole squad buildling game require mathematical capability?

Doesn't half points require math in public also? I don't mean that snarkily; I really don't understand the distinction between the two.

Not really, as a "half point" value could just be put on future cards. But for current cards, of course, there is a "divide by two" step -- I submit that a single step is much easier than the other suggestions that are multiple step approaches.

That only works if the half points ignore upgrade costs, which per my understanding, is not the proposal.

My approach is a single step as well; hull_damage * per_pilot_value.

MajorJuggler: after posting, I realized that a lot of my gut dislike for an even MoV-per-point-of-damage setup is due to dissatisfaction with this situation:

I have an HLC and a focus token, and two decimators in-arc. One is at full health, and one is at 1hp. My expected MoV-per-round is better if I shoot at the full health deci, instead of the 1hp one (since the HLC+focus is most likely to do 2+ damage).

That feels clunky and gamey to me, and counter-intuitive to boot (yes, there are benefits to not getting shot at in return, etc. but I think that the scoring should support that, not contradict).

I have an HLC and a focus token, and two decimators in-arc. One is at full health, and one is at 1hp. My expected MoV-per-round is better if I shoot at the full health deci, instead of the 1hp one (since the HLC+focus is most likely to do 2+ damage).

That feels clunky and gamey to me, and counter-intuitive to boot (yes, there are benefits to not getting shot at in return, etc. but I think that the scoring should support that, not contradict).

Replace "full health" with "shields down", which isn't that far off for a Decimator, and you've got the same situation again.

Plus unless it was the final round you'd always kill the weaker Decimator because it'll shoot you, which if you're scoring for each hit is not a thing you want.

Let me show you some of the stuff SWLCG requires if you go to time...

When the end of an elimination round game is announced by the TO, the players continue the current game round through the end of the light side player’s turn, so that each player has had the same number of turns to complete the game. If the game is not completed in that time period, the winner is determined by using tiebreaker scoring, following the procedure outlined below. The Light Side player scores 4 points for each objective he has in his victory pile, and 0.1 points for each damage that is on a Dark Side objective. The Dark Side player scores 0 points if the Death Star dial is at 0–3, 4 points if the dial is at 4–7, and 8 points if the dial is at 8–11. The Dark Side player also adds 0.1 points for each damage that is on a Light Side objective. The player who holds the Balance of the Force also scores 0.25 points.

Granted, this is only to determine who is the actual winner. And SWLCG has asymetric victory conditions. But it is still a pain in the ass. And there is some weird things that can happen when you consider that the objectives can have different amount of HP. Considering the amount of games that go to time because of a LGS's inability to use 75 min rounds, partial points is going to just make things a pain in the ass.

At this point, you are almost better at moving the full victory win conditions up. Not back up to 33, that is a little too high. But 20 seems to be a fair result.

Partial points based only on the 'naked' ship's value and how much hull it has is the closest I could get to supporting some kind of partial points.

I'd say make it really simple and say half the pilot's points (rounded up if needed) for dealing damage cards to a ship equal or greater than half those needed to destroy the ship. This give ships one "partial" value and the full value. Sure the partial value may be less than half of the full value as full value includes upgrades but it would be better than nothing which is what people cry about the most.

Is simple math really so scary?

Have you seen the school systems lately?

I'm not sure it should be only for large ships, as you can have some pretty cheap large ships (shuttles) as well as pretty expensive small ships (corran).

I like the half killed idea, so I'd just do it on points. Maybe it applies to any ship that costs 50 or more points (including upgrades).

There is no perfect solution, only ones that are substantially "less bad" than others. If you had a robust tournament scoring sheet and tournament software, then you could implement any scoring system that you wanted.

I have an HLC and a focus token, and two decimators in-arc. One is at full health, and one is at 1hp. My expected MoV-per-round is better if I shoot at the full health deci, instead of the 1hp one (since the HLC+focus is most likely to do 2+ damage).

That feels clunky and gamey to me, and counter-intuitive to boot (yes, there are benefits to not getting shot at in return, etc. but I think that the scoring should support that, not contradict).

If we take the proposed combat doctrine of "maximize MoV per shot in an extreme short-term view", then this would logically involve spreading your fire around and not killing any ships until they are all very low health. Tactically, this is about the worst thing that you can do, and you will usually end up losing the game outright, and also having worse MoV even when you do win.

In this particular instance, if it is not the last game round then it will still be MoV optimal to kill the wounded ship anyway. You need to focus fire and remove ships off the board to get the snowball effect to maximize your squad's combat effectiveness.

Even if it is the last round, if the target is lower PS and has a shot on you, then it might still be worth taking the ship off the board, since you won't lose any MoV on the return fire. You would have to do some math on a case by case basis and see what the probability density function of MoV looks like for either choice.

I think I had discussed something along the lines for this topic once upon a time, and I agree with you. It is relatively simple, and makes sense to me since the points spent on upgrades are not actually destroyed until the ship is destroyed. The same can be said for agility, pilot skill, and attack power stats too, so I would advocate that the pts / hull is actually a lower value than your suggested: Ship Cost / Total Hull and instead should be something like:

(Ship Cost - pts spent on Attack - pts spent on agility - pts spent on Pilot Skill - points spent on agility) / total Hull

Either way though, FFG could release a table that shows how many Points each Hull on each ship is worth when calculating match points. It would be another requires tournament document, and each player would have to be aware of how much each hull is worth on their own ships, just like we are required to know game rules.

I also like your idea to not include shields in the cost.

Would this be restricted to big ships? Wha justification would we give for this? Will doing this harm other big ships like Firesprays and Shuttles, who aren't traditionally ran with upgrades that give them really good defensive boosts?

(Ship Cost - pts spent on Attack - pts spent on agility - pts spent on Pilot Skill - points spent on agility) / total Hull

My gut feeling is that the lower costs would end up being too low to be meaningful.

Either way though, FFG could release a table that shows how many Points each Hull on each ship is worth when calculating match points. It would be another requires tournament document, and each player would have to be aware of how much each hull is worth on their own ships, just like we are required to know game rules.

I also like your idea to not include shields in the cost.

Would this be restricted to big ships? Wha justification would we give for this? Will doing this harm other big ships like Firesprays and Shuttles, who aren't traditionally ran with upgrades that give them really good defensive boosts?

I would restrict this to large ships only. I don't feel that the small ship game needs the (slight) additional complexity, or the upset to the OODA loop while playing.

Through wave 6, the highest hit points on a small base is 8 (B-Wings and Y-Wings), and I don't feel that either of those need an MoV disadvantage. B-Wings are good, but not dominant the way large ships are (and the difference between 1 hull damage and dead is only 2 more damage; it's not like having to chew through 7 more YT-1300 hull)). Wave 7 will introduce some 9hp small bases, but I don't know how that's going to play out. In terms of raw hull, Bombers have 6, but I don't think that they need any MoV disadvantage either.

I think that it's unfortunate that Firesprays and Shuttles would suffer some, because while Firesprays are decent, I don't think that they need an MoV disadvantage either (and the Shuttle certainly doesn't).

One possible approach would be to change the criteria from "all large base ships" to either "all primary weapon turret ships" or "this list of ships: YT-1300, YT-2400, VT49 Decimator, Aggressor." I kind of like that last one, since it means that the decision to include a ship is based on actual imbalance, rather than an almost-what's-right criteria that would limit design space going forward. It would dovetail nicely with your suggestion to have FFG just print a list of MoV-per-hull-damage values, and state that any ship not listed there has a value of zero (status quo).

In fact, I think I like that idea enough to update my original post.

(Ship Cost - pts spent on Attack - pts spent on agility - pts spent on Pilot Skill - points spent on agility) / total Hull

My gut feeling is that the lower costs would end up being too low to be meaningful.

Either way though, FFG could release a table that shows how many Points each Hull on each ship is worth when calculating match points. It would be another requires tournament document, and each player would have to be aware of how much each hull is worth on their own ships, just like we are required to know game rules.

I also like your idea to not include shields in the cost.

Would this be restricted to big ships? Wha justification would we give for this? Will doing this harm other big ships like Firesprays and Shuttles, who aren't traditionally ran with upgrades that give them really good defensive boosts?

I would restrict this to large ships only. I don't feel that the small ship game needs the (slight) additional complexity, or the upset to the OODA loop while playing.

Through wave 6, the highest hit points on a small base is 8 (B-Wings and Y-Wings), and I don't feel that either of those need an MoV disadvantage. B-Wings are good, but not dominant the way large ships are (and the difference between 1 hull damage and dead is only 2 more damage; it's not like having to chew through 7 more YT-1300 hull)). Wave 7 will introduce some 9hp small bases, but I don't know how that's going to play out. In terms of raw hull, Bombers have 6, but I don't think that they need any MoV disadvantage either.

I think that it's unfortunate that Firesprays and Shuttles would suffer some, because while Firesprays are decent, I don't think that they need an MoV disadvantage either (and the Shuttle certainly doesn't).

One possible approach would be to change the criteria from "all large base ships" to either "all primary weapon turret ships" or "this list of ships: YT-1300, YT-2400, VT49 Decimator, Aggressor." I kind of like that last one, since it means that the decision to include a ship is based on actual imbalance, rather than an almost-what's-right criteria that would limit design space going forward. It would dovetail nicely with your suggestion to have FFG just print a list of MoV-per-hull-damage values, and state that any ship not listed there has a value of zero (status quo).

In fact, I think I like that idea enough to update my original post.

A partial MOV scoring system is not needed. Changing victory points or the delta for a full win may be needed, but a division problem to change the MOV scoring is a chaotic mess.

It is also a terrible idea to deem that these ships get a change in the way MOV is scored for them, but those ships are just fine and we aren't going to change how we score those ships. If the solution can't incorporate the entire game, then it is probably a clunky bad solution to the problem. You can't just penalize YTs and Decimators because today some feel that they are point fortresses. The law of unintended consequences should show us that once you alter the scoring for YTs and Decimators, suddenly some other point fortress ship will now have a huge advantage and become the new hotness. Then what, we need to change the rules on just that newly popular ship because some are using the MOV rule to their advantage? How many fingers have you got? Do you really want to keep sticking your fingers in the holes to stop the leaks?

The only way to solve this nonexistent problem is to find a simple solution that incorporates all ships of all sizes. The solution probably isn't in partial MOV points, it's just too damned chaotic to handle. The solution probably lies in match points. Award 3 points for a modified win, 4 points for a win greater than 12, but for matches where the losing side is not completely destroyed, and then award 5 points for a win in which the loser is completely destroyed. With the very small cuts in the bigger tournaments, a 4 point win is almost as good as a loss when compared the the 5 point wins. That should provide enough incentive to not run from a fight and to destroy your opponent in total. It also rewards ships with more guns vs ships with fewer guns (turrets).

Stop trying to make players and TOs lives harder with complicated scoring systems with division or scoring tables and ships worth different points per HP destroyed.

With the very small cuts in the bigger tournaments, a 4 point win is almost as good as a loss when compared the the 5 point wins. That should provide enough incentive to not run from a fight and to destroy your opponent in total.

I don't care who you are or how tight the cut line is. If you are running a 1 or 2 health Decimator against 2 or 3 healthy small base ships, you'll take ANY win before you take on a suicide mission in a vain effort to get 5 points.

Enough with the partial scoring garbage. If a player makes a critical mistake with a decimator, he's going to lose 65 points in one go. BBBBZ has to lose 3 bs for that, or a BBYY type control build has to lose 3/4 ships, and then at that point they will probably not have won the game anyway. Yes they will consistently lose 22-50 points ish worth of ships per game, and there will be large ship builds that FLY WELL and lose 0. But they are at risk of losing quite a bit from poor flying. There are just as many large ship builds in the bottom brackets because of this. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, MOV is NOT the reason that these builds are good. At most store championships, MOV was not the big deal it is at a regional. A 20 ish player store championship with 8 people in the cut was basically just about wins and losses. And there were still plenty of these builds in there. Aggressors are good. Period. Chir + soontir is good. Period. The falcon builds were very popular BEFORE mov. Just stop it already. The MOV is just a happy side effect for those lists, but they still need to fly well (aka not get their big ship blocked by a z-95 and railed by 3 bwings or w/e) and WIN.

You will not get the squad diversity you think you will with a partial scoring change. You'll just turn falcon/decimator/etc. builds into MORE IG-88s because the aggressor, which is already consistently performing ahead of the rest right now, would be downright @#$%ing ridiculous under this system.

/end rant

I understand the intent of THIS thread may be to try to find a "good" partial system, and I'm referring more to these mov posts in general, but seriously just leave it alone and practice some games against these builds or something. The main reason decimators don't die for example is because people try to go for soontir and dont get the rolls. Soontir doesn't hit you that hard. He can't reroll blanks. Go all in on decimator. You will beat it much more often. You'll be ahead on points when time runs out even if you can't finish soontir after the first pass. If you're list can't consistently accomplish that, then reevaluate the list. Just one example. Then play more against aggressors, they do have SOME weaknesses. Learn how to exploit them etc. Put all this time and energy to better use.

Enough with the partial scoring garbage. If a player makes a critical mistake with a decimator, he's going to lose 65 points in one go. BBBBZ has to lose 3 bs for that, or a BBYY type control build has to lose 3/4 ships, and then at that point they will probably not have won the game anyway. Yes they will consistently lose 22-50 points ish worth of ships per game, and there will be large ship builds that FLY WELL and lose 0. But they are at risk of losing quite a bit from poor flying. There are just as many large ship builds in the bottom brackets because of this. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, MOV is NOT the reason that these builds are good. At most store championships, MOV was not the big deal it is at a regional. A 20 ish player store championship with 8 people in the cut was basically just about wins and losses. And there were still plenty of these builds in there. Aggressors are good. Period. Chir + soontir is good. Period. The falcon builds were very popular BEFORE mov. Just stop it already. The MOV is just a happy side effect for those lists, but they still need to fly well (aka not get their big ship blocked by a z-95 and railed by 3 bwings or w/e) and WIN.

You will not get the squad diversity you think you will with a partial scoring change. You'll just turn falcon/decimator/etc. builds into MORE IG-88s because the aggressor, which is already consistently performing ahead of the rest right now, would be downright @#$%ing ridiculous under this system.

/end rant

Losing a 65 point Decimator due solely to a single mistake happened to no one, ever.

And you do know that the scoring system determines wins and losses for timed games, right? And there are an awful lot of store championships that ran 60 minute rounds.

I will agree that heavily upgraded 2 ship lists are not inherently caused by MOV. I believe them to be more caused by attempts by players to field ships that require nearly a full squad to kill. Those ships people say "you must focus X down before you lose too many ships". If you field 2 of those, all you need to do is knock out a chunk of your opponent and have 1 ship remaining. Those ships that you simply can't take down with a single 3-die attack, but need multiple attacks to get through their tokens, or to get them in arc, or to overcome their regeneration, or some combination of the three. Tokened up AT Soontir. R2-D2 Corran. Super-mobile turrets. Fat Falcons. They are all an attempt to force your opponent into an unwinnable endgame, even if your last remaining ship is heavily damaged and they have several. It is the reason you see souped up Corran and Soontir as escorts over souped up anything else. A fully kitted B-Wing might be great, but it isn't dodging arcs and it isn't shedding damage. It isn't going to singlehandedly wipe out 3Zs or Ties without eating some damage. It is on a timer that, if long enough, will end with its death.

Now would be a good time to again tell my story of a 48pt Boba vs. a measly Knave Squadron with R2-D2, but I'll resist. Long story short is that ships that have a health attrition rate against a single gun have gone the way of the Dodo in favor of ships can that shed damage entirely unless focused on by several shots.

I like it, good points!

One thing I thought of...A partial point system for the large base turret ships means those ships will virtually never win 100-0. I know this is what we are looking for, so players get credit for the damage done, but it seems funny. Consider those situations when playing against something like 4 B Wings, 2 of them sitting at 1 hp when they finish off the last ship, giving a 100-0 score to the B Wings. Turrets will be automatically incapable of this when they lose shields + 1 hull, which stinks, even when they kill an entire 100 pt squad within the time limits. Maybe that's enough to curb the MoV advantage for the big ships with Engine upgrades, but the big ships that are relying on that hull to out-trade (essentially joust) and don't take engine are worse off than they already were, even if the squad would traditionally score a 100-0 win.

The problem I'm having is, if we run away our 1 HP small ship (could be a 46 pt Defender), we are praised for "good play" or our opponent is berated for "lack of focus fire". But if our turret ship escapes with 1 hp, we are calling this "fundamentally incorrect and needs to be fixed".

Hmm, I think that's all a moot point, now that I think about it. We are trying to curb the obvious MoV advantage these ships have, which is obviously present.

Yeah, I have a feeling all the "large ship only" calls for fixes will quickly disapear once Miranda shenanigans start.

One more point that I have:

I think I am okay with Large base Turret ships and the like ("Points Fortresses", etc) being targeted for partial points if and only if it targets tie breaking MoV and not the points required to win a match.

This will not necessarily affect game play that much (affects 7-15 players or something who make or miss the cut by way of higher MoV), and doesn't determine how you actually win, just how much you win by.

At least for a start, this doesn't seem like a huge change to the game as it is. I don't think people will honestly play all that different if they still have to finish off ships to get the win. The 1 loss players MIGHT act different after that first loss, but up until that point the game will feel normal.