It is getting a bit tiresome seeing really bad ideas for fixing turrets, here's a few I recall:

-When firing outside of an arc, reduce the attacker's primary attack and/or increase defender's agility.

-There should be a moveable arc piece on the baseplate that is adjusted as part of the activation phase.

-Split attack values for whatever reason.

-Banhammer (facetious, I know).

Here's my proposition for "fixing" not only turrets, but the competitive meta as a whole: Get rid of Margin of Victory (MOV).

I believe MOV is literally the only thing making turrets "too good" and is at the root of causing all the whining and suggested patches to the game that are unnecessary, especially since it is mainly a competitive problem and people playing casually could really care less. But with MOV, you get something like Autothrusters out of it. Lets slap a dice modifier that triggers beyond range 2 and out of arc and turns blanks to evades. Only time it isn't working? Range 1-2 in arc. All yours for 2 points. Now you have a mathematically busted Soontir Fel, able to consistently evade 3 damage on a less-than-decent dice roll against a turret or Range 3 shot.

This is something I like to call lazy design. It feels like they over-produced a card to help an ailing symptom of the competitive aspect of the game, not taking action by doing something that will actually cure the problem. Now you have Fel, typically run at 35-36 points, with a Fat Decimator, a turret, shooting up the meta and reaping the rewards of both turret and anti-turret/arc-dodgey shenanigans. That's not to say Autothrusters are unnecessary for a healthy meta, just that it is something that came from something else that couldve been fixed awhile back.

Why do people choose to fly Fel and a Decimator? Or Falcons and Outriders with Z's and Corran? Simply put, they are protecting their investment in points by using combos or desirable elements to deny the scoring of points. You can call it holding points hostage, points needed to score well on MOV are not awarded because you didn't "score" them. End of round, if a Chewie gets down to 1 Hull after the rest of the list has been obliterated and you're sitting there with a single B-Wing, the Chewie player receives a modified win because he left more points on the table. Same goes for Soontir-Decimator, Falcons and pre-nerf Phantoms.

This does two things:

1: It rewards "Fat" lists and two-ship lists, far more than it rewards lists utilizing formations and skilled maneuvering such as Rebel Control or our beloved and missed TIE Swarm.

2: People can abuse the scoring system of MOV through modified wins, which also rewards the "Fat" meta mentality.

Unfortunately, X-Wing doesn't have a best of X round games like Magic: The Gathering has to determine victory and set solid tiebreakers. And before we go on about how "X-Wing isn't MtG", we can still take elements from that game's competitive scoring, placement and ranking system and apply it to X-Wing. In X-Wing, we still have Win-Loss-Draw ratios, however, MOV messes all that up in the way that mediocre strategies are more widely present and commonly played and diverse list building isn't encouraged. The concept of MOV is so bad an A-Wing player can blow up a single ship and skirt around the table until time is called and win. The A-Wing player's MOV is horrible, but theoretically, they can win a tournament by blowing up a single ship each round running away.

In Magic, when time is called, you have a 5-turn grace period to finish the game, allowing the players to try to play it out before a draw is determined. But, a draw is determined regardless of the life totals. Once the 5th turn is over, if no victory conditions have been met (reducing life to 0, receiving 10 poison counters, decking the opponent out of cards to draw, etc.), the match ends in a draw. Not a "modified win", no partial points are calculated. You either win, lose or draw.

If we were to do away with MOV as a determining factor of victory and left it to a barebones win condition of "victory is only achieved when your opponent's list is completely destroyed" and rank players like MtG does, 3 points for a Win, 0 points for a Loss and 1 point for a Draw, you will still be able to pair players together based on performance ratios, but now you've eliminated the bonus reward that "Fat" meta lists received by being able to hold points hostage.

Example:

RAC Fel vs. XXXXA. Three X's and the A are blown up but took the Decimator down. Now Soontir needs to beat the X-Wing or they both run the risk of receiving a draw. Yes, the X-Wing player can try to play keep away from Soontir until time in order to draw, but the draw will hurt that player's record as well. Not to mention, Soontir will be sweating bricks to try to pop that X-Wing in time and that X-Wing player will try to retaliate. This encourages better playing, discourages slow playing and will lead to more interesting engagements.

Example 2:

Han blows up Dash at the loss of his Z-95s and running down to 7 hull. Now, Corran (or whoever was Dash's compliment) has a chance to spring back and take out Han, and Han can't hold his 60ish points hostage because he'll take a draw that will hurt that player's record, and Corran needs to hustle up or his record is shot, too. Now, that turret player needs to kill Corran by engaging them instead of boosting out of range and evading two hits each turn. From there, the game can go either way: Han blasting Corran out of the galaxy or Corran double-tapping Han for the finishing blow.

By taking away the ability for "Fat" meta lists to hold points hostage, players are forced to design lists with X-Wing's hearty and attractive game design: Dogfighting. By changing the mentality of the tournament/competitive meta from "keeping my points alive" to "destroying all of the enemy's points" you encourage lists like TIE/M3-A Swarm to have a shot at the meta. Now, keep in mind, "Fat" meta lists will still be relevant and competitive, they are just no longer rewarded above other lists by MOV's system.

No unnecessary mechanical nerf, no more requiring the design of roundabout upgrade cards built specifically for the competitive meta, no revision in the FAQ, now you'll have people playing to actually win the game by eliminating points, not preserving them.

Problems I can see with an MtG-like scoring system:

-You'll get point-suicide players who've been paired up and decided to cut their losses and try to intentionally draw to ruin their opponent's score, but even then, their opponent should fly for the sake of trying to take that bastard down for the win.

-Time will need to be extended either on the clock or on a X-number of turn grace period after time is called. This could be troublesome for the players' personal commitment and the scheduling and logistics aspect of running events at an LGS. But, if someone is going to run or participate in a tournament, they should be able to commit the time to do so. But I understand that that is easier said than done for most people

-Any other foreseeable problems, I'd like to hear.

Turrets are fine as-is. Yes, 360 arcs exist, but it is balanced at the cost of a premium investment in list building. Yes, there are some combos that are better than others, but a lot of games have a combo-building strategic element as well as other strategies to utilize. Eliminating MOV will just remove the bonus reward that favors one strategy over all other strategies.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. If there are any misunderstandings, I will do my best to clarify.

I'm just hoping this suggestion will hopefully ease this forum's seemingly endless hatred and frustration towards turrets since other types of lists should have a better chance without MOV.

LET'S MAKE MOV DISAPPEAR!

Could not MOV be modified to reflect 'damage inflicted'?

Given that the current organised play system has one scenario 'kill everything' it not going to penalise fleets that cold win by other means.

Like if I had four xwings in my force, two end the game unscathed, one is totally destroyed and the other reduced to 1 hull... i'd have taken nine 'wounding hits'

If you took Han Solo and corran and corran was destroyed and solo left on two hull points you'd have taken 16 points of damage so you'd lose.

Have i missed something really obvious that would make that more unfair than the current MOV?

The only thing i can think of is that some ships like the decimator , their strength is soaking up damage.

so auto-thrusters are lazy design, not the rule that completely and utterly negates their ability to avoid fire, thus basically completely kicking their player out of the game in favor of dice, and forces them to become overpriced tie fighters?

that upgrade was necessary for interceptors to reliably exist in a game with PWTs, even though the strategic/tactical element of the game is maneuvering and just casually negating it is imo a bunch of bull. Auto-thrusters shouldn't have had to be made, but PWTs as currently implemented should never have existed in the first place.

not sure why auto-thrusters are lazy but being able to fire at anyone who could possibly shoot at a PWT is not. At least auto-thrusters have to be enabled by maneuvering, not by "**** you, that's why"

****, my post was lost.

Edit:

Gadge, I think wound-points would still be as sophisticated and unbalanced as MOV by favoring certain lists.

I also agree with you on having multiple formats, maybe something with objectives or wave restrictions to spice things up.

Fickle,

I said something about Autothrusters being lazy because they only catered to a certain niche of ships in the competitive meta, and by niche I mean Fel. Fel being busted as hard as PWT is an easy argument to make, but it doesn't take away the fact that MOV encourages and rewards boring strategies such as turrets or Fel or turrets AND Fel.

so auto-thrusters are lazy design, not the rule that completely and utterly negates their ability to avoid fire, thus basically completely kicking their player out of the game in favor of dice, and forces them to become overpriced tie fighters?

that upgrade was necessary for interceptors to reliably exist in a game with PWTs, even though the strategic/tactical element of the game is maneuvering and just casually negating it is imo a bunch of bull. Auto-thrusters shouldn't have had to be made, but PWTs as currently implemented should never have existed in the first place.

not sure why auto-thrusters are lazy but being able to fire at anyone who could possibly shoot at a PWT is not. At least auto-thrusters have to be enabled by maneuvering, not by "**** you, that's why"

Yeah, he clearly never had a Fel one shot at Range 3 before. I feel bad because I've done it far too many times. And a few times without a HLC.

As for the thread, there seems to be an slight issue in understanding. Margin of Victory is not the primary ranking. You still have victory points. Margin of Victory is the first tiebreaker. Now, they sort of changed the victory conditions to make it easier for full victory than a partial victory, primarily to allow TIE swarms to fall out of contention when faced with another TIE swarm.

Once, just once I'd love for a MoV/Turret complaint thread to give me a reason to believe a single word they spout. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone say "here's how many games are played in X regionals, Y went to time and Z% of them had fat turrets and those turrets won". How often do people go to time on rounds, because it's happened to me like once when I first started playing ever. Sure, some lists take longer than others, but most of the time I'm pretty sure <=10 games total in an entire regional go to time. Maybe I'm wrong and it's actually 75% of games, but unless someone can actually point out a link of any kind here, it's just bull about "I think turrets win so much because MoV", a statement which can look sexy on paper, but not actually hold true to life even a little bit.

The reduction of MoV fixed it. Shoot Fat Han's escorts and bug out, or focus fire on Fat Han for a secured victory. MoV is the root cause of lack of meta diversity.

As it has already been said turrets are not the problem. If they were then you would not see IG88-B, Whisper, Soonter, or Corran Horn in the top meta. Instead they would have all been replaced with ORS, Edron Vrill, Y-wings without the BTL-A4 title and HWK-290s for more turrets.

The problem is not Han it is the Fat. Turrets often cost so much and have so much health that they tend to make great point fortresses. The 360 firing arc is more of the icing on the cake to really make it look brokenly OP as it doesn't have to face the same direction.

Here is an experiment. Try switching the 360 firing arc on Hans with the rear auxiliary firing arcs like Boba fet. Just keep the same points and skills and everything. See if Han is still good. If he is still rock solid in that list then you know what the problem is.

How about a much simpler fix: adjust the MoV required to win a non-modified win to either a larger static number, or the least expensive ship amongs those being fielded by the player with the fewest ships. For example, player A is running RAC / Fel, and player B is running a TIE swarm. The RAC / Fel player has only two ships, and his least expensive ship is ~30 points. In order to receive a full win, either player must destroy that many points or more. The TIE player has to blow up a 30 point ship in order to win anyways, why should the RAC / Fel player only have to blow up a 12 point ship?

Of the players running fat turrets that make it into the elimination rounds, how many of their games in the previous rounds went to time? I guess what I'm asking is, is MoV really the problem if most fat turret lists are tabling their opponents anyway?

I'm with Wonder. Widen the gap enough that any single ship can't get a full win by leaving two others on the table. Say 35 points or so? I can't think of a matchup that is likely to go to time where a 35-point gap wouldn't represent the eventual winner a decent fraction of the time.

Disagree, if mov were the issue they'd be perpetual runner ups rather than constant champs

Of the players running fat turrets that make it into the elimination rounds, how many of their games in the previous rounds went to time? I guess what I'm asking is, is MoV really the problem if most fat turret lists are tabling their opponents anyway?

I think tableing is more of a result of the 2 ship build. Which sort of make sense. However since most elimination data is not recorded (because who wants to study the loosers ) it is hard to tell what the MOV plays with the meta. However the lists that do make it do provide data and sort of a revers analysis of what effect the MOV has.

I'm with Wonder. Widen the gap enough that any single ship can't get a full win by leaving two others on the table. Say 35 points or so? I can't think of a matchup that is likely to go to time where a 35-point gap wouldn't represent the eventual winner a decent fraction of the time.

Again, when it used to be 33 pts, it pretty much knocked TIE swarms out of contention if they faced another TIE swarm. 33 is too much. 12 is a bit too little.

I'm with Wonder. Widen the gap enough that any single ship can't get a full win by leaving two others on the table. Say 35 points or so? I can't think of a matchup that is likely to go to time where a 35-point gap wouldn't represent the eventual winner a decent fraction of the time.

Again, when it used to be 33 pts, it pretty much knocked TIE swarms out of contention if they faced another TIE swarm. 33 is too much. 12 is a bit too little.

I figure 25 points would be a better number.

Of course if it was pushed back up to 33 points there may be more modified wins and thus more places you see the MoV tie breaker used which keeps the quality of the win important.

MoV isn't the problem, and MoV is way better for tie breakers than strength of schedule. We need partial point scoring. If I can get points for just damage your fat turret instead of being required to kill it, it is no longer a problem at all. The reason fat turrets are soo good it for 50+ points if my ship can survive until time that's most of my list in points you don't get.

By this logic, a single, tanky ship that's 100 points would be the pinnacle of the current system and the ultimate meta breaker. Wrong! Its main weakness would be even more exploitable: only one attack. Everyone gets so bent out of shape over the strengths of Fat Han (or any Fatness) and fail to recognize the inherent weaknesses (to include overpricing), which outweigh the strengths.

I'm with Wonder. Widen the gap enough that any single ship can't get a full win by leaving two others on the table. Say 35 points or so? I can't think of a matchup that is likely to go to time where a 35-point gap wouldn't represent the eventual winner a decent fraction of the time.

Again, when it used to be 33 pts, it pretty much knocked TIE swarms out of contention if they faced another TIE swarm. 33 is too much. 12 is a bit too little.

If you look back at the original suggestion, which I think Taste missed in his post, a TIE Swarm vs TIE Swarm victory would only require 12 points.

I don't think MoV is that big of a deal. Not so many games go to time that it makes a huge difference from what I've seen.

The reason turrets do well is because they are either tank or arc dodge or both, do a lot of damage or consistent damage, their damage doesn't fall off until they die completely, and they can concentrate that power in a relatively small amount of board space.

Basically, I don't think a change or removal of MoV will has as big of an effect as you think it will because turrets can flat out win games, not just stall for time (unless it's a tanky chewie or something).

By taking away the ability for "Fat" meta lists to hold points hostage, players are forced to design lists with X-Wing's hearty and attractive game design: Dogfighting. By changing the mentality of the tournament/competitive meta from "keeping my points alive" to "destroying all of the enemy's points" you encourage lists like TIE/M3-A Swarm to have a shot at the meta.

Swarms are still very relevant against Fatness. Fat Han and two Zs stand no chance against 8 TIEs.

How? We have no sway, despite the delusions of grandeur that go on in this board. Besides, I'd rather not make MoV disappear.

I have thought of say an MOV extra points for ships that are at half health or shields down.

Shields Down (if start with shields > 0) = 1 point

Ship with half or less hull points remaining = 10 points

Ship destroyed = full points

The problem with 'shields down' is that if i take M3as (and i know you wouldnt do well if you did) as a swarm, im pretty much handing points to you if you just scratch them whereas your b wings could take the same amount of hits, lets say an unrealistic one hit each on 4 ships.

You gain 4 points, i gain nothing.

Penalises ships with low HP and encourages more BBBBZ lists.

How about a much simpler fix: adjust the MoV required to win a non-modified win to either a larger static number, or the least expensive ship amongs those being fielded by the player with the fewest ships. For example, player A is running RAC / Fel, and player B is running a TIE swarm. The RAC / Fel player has only two ships, and his least expensive ship is ~30 points. In order to receive a full win, either player must destroy that many points or more. The TIE player has to blow up a 30 point ship in order to win anyways, why should the RAC / Fel player only have to blow up a 12 point ship?

This is the best fix for all the MoV complaints I have heard to date! Easy to implement and easy to figure out on site. Well done Waaagh!

It sure beats partial damage scoring, or whatever convoluted formulae people are devising these days.

It sure beats partial damage scoring, or whatever convoluted formulae people are devising these days.

I don't think partial damage scoring has to be very complicated. Just figure out the total amount of shields + hull a list has, then just assign a score as the percentage of that removed as damage during the game. If you have 30 total shield and hull points at the start of the game and 15 at the end of the game, your opponent gets 50% of the score.

I would combine this with the current MoV system - have half of your match score be determined by the current system and half determined by damage scoring. Have 100 possible points for the round and assign up to 50 for each.