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.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again! You are absolutely correct that with a partial MOV change, any ship that surrenders some of it's points with partial damage will be incapable of winning 100-0. That's a bad outcome.

FFG probably just needs to stop releasing defensive upgrades. A little over a year ago creating a defensive ship was foolish. The defensive upgrades didn't do enough to make them worthwhile, I'm looking at you Elusiveness and Flight Instructor. But now, some of the defenses are so good and so powerful you just have to take them.

FFG appears to be making it a point to punish players that are flying unnamed pilots and swarms. Look at Predator, Whisper, Autothrusters has suddenly made the Interceptor playable. A year or so ago playing named pilots was viewed as a waste of points in a lot of circles, but now you can get tons of value out of high PS named pilots. I just think what we are seeing in the game today is a result of FFG's pro named pilot strategy as of late. This game would be so boring if it was 8 tie swarm vs 8 tie swarm over and over again trying to evaluate how each and every collision would end for 16 ships in a giant furball. It's better that the game is much more opened up now.

I still don't think this is a problem that needs a solution.

On second thought, I have more agreement with Rinehart. Some other tournament format change would be a cleaner, more in control of the TO solution. It doesn't directly "fix" the gripes of the players, but it could mean we have less to complain about since players going 100-0 and what not, getting "better" wins, will get more tournament points.

I for one think we just need to add more breakpoints for tournament rounds based on player attendance. 5 rounds for 64 players and 6 rounds for 90 or what not makes tie breakers more prevalant, which could clear up at least 50% of the issues with these ships/builds.

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.

That's weird, because I sort of feel exactly the opposite would be okay with me. There is going to be some math that makes a "guess" at who is closest to winning. I'd rather it be a better "guess" at who won, and couldn't care less about partial points for tiebreaker.

At the end of the day though, two calculations wouldn't make much sense in either case.

And one other random thought on my earlier point about people building for 2-ship lists to create two pieces that "I need nearly my whole squad to beat". We used to think of this sort of list really took a lot of courage, but I kind of look at it now as the smart, safe play. We can trade a similar number of points, but if my remaining is a super ship and yours is/are anything that is not, my win % goes way up.

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.

While that risk is present as you describe, it's not enough to offset the advantages provided by the archetype. That's why they're over-represented in the cut compared to the field as a whole.

There are just as many large ship builds in the bottom brackets because of this.

It drives me up the wall when people assert completely untrue stuff like this as if it's a fact. It's doubly bad given how much effort has been put in by Sozin, MJ, the list builder authors, etc. to make this data easily accessible to everyone, so that we don't have to listen to people just making stuff up.

Go here: http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/charts

And then compare the regional breakdowns for RAC overall and in elimination rounds.

RAC was 3% of pilots brought to a regional, and 4.7% of the pilots that made the cut. For comparison, Soontir is 4.8% overall, and 6% of the cut.

So no, there aren't as many Rear Admirals in the bottom brackets compared to other ships, even compared to powerhouses like Fel. Bringing RAC means you're 50% more likely to make the cut than average.

Feel free to look up the numbers for the other ships I'm proposing partial MoV scoring apply to. Doing so will probably be educational.

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.

Are you aware how dismissive and insulting this position is? You're basically saying that people who lose to RAC (and PWTs in general) are generally worse-than-average pilots, while the RAC pilots must be better than average (they have to be, given their stellar rate of making the cut).

Even granting that were true, why is it that all of the good pilots choose to fly RAC, etc.? <sarcasm>Certainly not because they're overpowered.</sarcasm>

I still go back to what I said a long time ago.

Points Per Hit:

Total Point Cost/(Shield+Hull) Rounded down gives you standard cost for each point of damage you have suffered.

Calculation Examples:

Tie 12 points/3+0=4 pts for each point suffered at the end of the game

X-wing Rookie 21 points/2+3=4.2 (or 4 pts) each point suffered at the end of the game

Han, C-3PO, R2D2, Falcon title, Engine Upgrade 58 pts/5+8=13= 4.4 (or 4 pts) for each point suffered at end of game

Soontir, Push, Title, Shield Upgrade, Auto Thrusters 38 pts/1+3 = 9.5 (or 9 pts) for each point suffered at end of game.

1) you end the game with the han above, and he has 4 hull left. You would earn 9*4=36 pts for him

2) you end the game with soontir suffering only 1 shield, you would earn 1*9=9 pts

It's really pretty simple to use and very effective. We use it in multiplayer games, so we know how many points each player earns.

FFG add's one spot on the sheet that says points per hit= PPH for every ship.

Remember this is only at the end of the game, so if you heal shields back points are not earned for them.