There's complicated, and then there's inelegant. Personally, I'd like to implement as little change as possible to the current system. Partial damage scoring doesn't achieve that.

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!

Agreed this sounds like a pretty healthy fix. Still think we would see 2 ship builds galore, but at least it forces the opponent to keep going for the swarm instead of turning around and having the swarm chase them.

MoV, while not terrible (and while it may have a good bit of influence on the 2 ship meta, I wouldn't say it's the reason for it), definitely isn't the best way of scoring matches. Here are a few of the best options to assure the best players are making the top tables-

1. Find a way to assure games finish on time. Obviously, if games always finished before time, we wouldn't have this issue of MoV. While it would cure the issue, it's basically impossible, and the options to push this fix are widely unpopular. One option would force the use of a time constraint on the different phases, and that could be a painful implementation. Seeing as this game varies greatly on the amount of thought required at certain points in the game, a static amount of time allotted per phase would likely not work well.

Another option is to give both players a loss instead of a draw if they don't finish their game within the time frame, but that's the type of "fix" that would do more damage than fixing. I myself am unaware of any good way to implement this.

2- Thicker lines between win and draw, such as that explained in the post quoted by WonderWAAAGH. There should rarely be an instance where a cheap ship kill makes the difference between a win and a loss. Especially in the case where one player is handicapped in having no options of receiving the same point kill. Games should only be counted as a win if a player has killed the number of points equal to or greater then their own lowest costed pilot. Major issue I can see here is if you are unfortunate enough to face an opponent who has a ship that is only a point or 2 lower then your own lowest costed ship. It would play with the strategy of the game, as it would force you to target the higher costed ship immediately, even if it was not your target priority, seeing as killing their low costed ship would not suffice for a win if the game went to time (this is an issue that exists in a way with MOV as well, as players are often forced to attack the opponents "Fat" ship immediately, as it is mathematically unlikely they will win even if they destroy its support).

3- Possibly the best option, but more difficult to implement then option 2, is some sort of "partial kill" scoring. Ex. If you do 1 damage to a 3 hull ship, that damage counts as 1/3 of its total point cost if that is the only damage dealt to that ship when the game goes to time. This would cure the worst of scenarios, where a Fat Han worth 62 pts wins a match, even though it had only 1 hull left against 2 full health B wings, or similar scenarios. The problem with this is the scoring is tedious, and it would be difficult for TOs to crunch the numbers on this each and every round, or to count on the players to always get the math correct. Possible fix could be to require each player to bring along with their list a "partial-kill count" that would list the points scored on the ship for each remaining health on the ship or something similar.

In a partial MoV system, how many points each damage to a particular ship is worth could be figured out once and written down on the squad sheet. Then you simply add up how much damage you did.

It's not that hard, stop being overly reactionary guys.

The problem with 'shields down' is that if i take M3as (and i know you wouldnt do well if you did) as a swarm,

I won a small local tourney last week (only the second tourney I've ever played). The guy with the mangler scyk swarm came in second and was the only matchup that was giving my tie swarm problems. The fat turret lists I tabled with a decent chunk of my ships still on the board and plenty of time left.

I think there are two points that are being crossed.

There is the points you need for a full victory.

And then there is the Margin of Victory that is used as the primary tiebreaker.

In a partial MoV system, how many points each damage to a particular ship is worth could be figured out once and written down on the squad sheet. Then you simply add up how much damage you did.

It's not that hard, stop being overly reactionary guys.

Not that hard, and still not especially elegant. We can do better than that.

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

Yeah. While fatness may help them reach the final table according to MOV, it's the actual effectiveness of the builds that allows them to win those untimed final matches.

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.

No. That is still plenty complicated. It also really makes me wonder how do all of those various durability upgrades factor in. A Stealth Device doesn't change anything but a Hull Upgrade alters the math. It's really scary when you start looking at things that can mitigate damage but do not alter starting shields or hull. How does a partial point system handle a ship with crewman Chewbacca? His ship may have a couple damage cards on it but otherwise be in great shape but he gets penalized if he's still sitting on the ship waiting to do his job when the game end?

When it comes to partial points the only thing I've ever seen I could offer any support to is the suggestion that a ship suffering damage equal to or greater than half of its base hull points offers up half of the base pilot's points. If you want points for upgrades then finish the ship off. If you want easy this is about as easy as it would get as ever pilot would have the exact same partial value that doesn't care about upgrades and such or meticulous tracking of every hit taken.

The moving target for a full victory seems like a better, and easier, solution.

I've said once and I'll say again: the simplest way to counter the turret meta will be to add upgrades that add bonuses when hunting Large ships, without being terrible against small ships.

In a partial MoV system, how many points each damage to a particular ship is worth could be figured out once and written down on the squad sheet. Then you simply add up how much damage you did.

It's not that hard, stop being overly reactionary guys.

Not that hard, and still not especially elegant. We can do better than that.

This is that same sort of annoying attitude that's incredibly pervasive in this community, any simple easy fixes to this game can't be done because they'd be simple and have to have forced nuance.

Can't just give the X Wing an extra hull, can't just ban ACD, can't just make it so that a 60 point Han with one hull left is worth more than zero points, can't just make A Wings cost 2 less points without costing a missile slot, etc.

Can't just give the X Wing an extra hull, can't just ban ACD, can't just make it so that a 60 point Han with one hull left is worth more than zero points, can't just make A Wings cost 2 less points without costing a missile slot, etc.

Some of these are economic reality. FFG can't errata point costs and statlines and hesitate to ban cards people paid for, hence the "creative" fixes. Alterations to rules can easily be simple though: see the decloak change.

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.

Yes I know but MA-3 interceptors are terrible as a swarm. You would probably be better flying 4 hawks instead. However 4 points wont really change much because it is a 12 point difference between tie and win.

However you are right it does favor high shields ships and throws a little bone to unshileded ships but the weakest would be the 1 shield ships as the first hit will give a point. Makes the Shield upgrade something to consider when choosing it over hull (unless you are a Tie Fighter/Interceptor/Bomber.)

However I think the numbers scale well with the ships as 2 hits on a TIE fighter is mostly a dead TIE fighter and 10 points is most of it. So now the question would finishing it of for the 2-4 points or letting it stay and still throw 2-3 attack dice? Still to check how it would scale lets take a look at several ships over the course of several hits, (lowest skill pilot). But here is a modification to 10 points for less than half hull (instead of half).

First hit

TIE Fighter 0

TIE Interceptor 0

MA-3 1

Z-95 0

Star Viper 1

X-wing 0

E-wing 0

Tie Bomber 0

Tie Defender 0

Y-wing 0

B-wing 0

Second hit

TIE Fighter 10

TIE Interceptor 10

MA-3 1

Z-95 1

Star Viper 1

X-wing 1

E-wing 0

Tie Bomber 0

Tie Defender 0

Y-wing 0

B-wing 0

Third hit

TIE Fighter 12

TIE Interceptor 18

MA-3 14

Z-95 1

Star Viper 1

X-wing 1

E-wing 1

Tie Bomber 0

Tie Defender 1

Y-wing 1

B-wing 0

Fifth hit

Star Viper 25

X-wing 21

E-wing 27

Tie Bomber 10

Tie Defender 10

Y-wing 1

B-wing 1

Sixth hit

Tie Bomber 16

Tie Defender 30

Y-wing 10

B-wing 1

7th Hit

Y-wing 10

B-wing 10

8th hit

Y-wing 18

B-wing 22

So The B-wing would have a 1 hit advantage over the Y-wing because the Y-wing will still have half hull after 5 hits. The 6th hit the Y-wing will be < half hull and on the 7th Hit both B&Y wings will be at < Half hull. Now to the point fortresses.

IG-88

1 point 4 hits

10 points 7 hits

Full points 8 hits

Dash

1 point 5 hits

10 points 8 hits

Full points 10 hits

Han

1 point 5 hits

10 points 10 hits

Full Points 13 hits

VT-49

1 point 4 hits

10 points 11 hits

Full Points 16 hits

So sure the Big ships do have an advantage as they take more hits to get points. But I think this will narrow the MOV gap as Dash will give 10 points in the same number of hits as it takes to get a B-wing. However with the B-wing there usually is another B-wing to continue firing at dash. It is not perfect, but nothing ever will be perfect even using overly complicated math for a pure partial point system. But I think this will significantly shake up the point fortress meta enough to lessen the power of point fortresses. 10 points for 10 hits on Fat Han is a heck of a lot better than 0.

I played Xizor w/ 5 Z's at a Regional this weekend. I always lost Z's, but that's the way it goes with a Swarm. I ended up with a terrible MoV and it messed with my games. I think 10th place was 3-2. I was also 3-2, but 33rd place.

I played Xizor w/ 5 Z's at a Regional this weekend. I always lost Z's, but that's the way it goes with a Swarm. I ended up with a terrible MoV and it messed with my games. I think 10th place was 3-2. I was also 3-2, but 33rd place.

That's how tie-breakers work. Though, that is a LOT of 3-2 players.

How about weighting wins differently? Eliminating the entire enemy squadron would grant more points than a tie-breaker win. While it still leaves the MOV intact, it adds incentive to finish off your opponent and not play it safe. In addition, any players who rely on protecting point fortresses for wins won't be able to keep up those who are able to consistently finish off their opponent. Maybe something as simple as:

Eliminate entire enemy squadron = 2 points

Win based on tie-breaker at time = 1 points

Losing = 0 points

You could also get more complicated and do something along the lines of:

Eliminate entire enemy squadron = 3 points

Win based on tie-breaker at time = 2 points

Lose based on tie-breaker = 1 point

Losing = 0 points

This is far from perfect, but it'd be simple to implement and wouldn't cause a lot of upheaval.

The problem with 'shields down' is that if i take M3as (and i know you wouldnt do well if you did) as a swarm,

I won a small local tourney last week (only the second tourney I've ever played). The guy with the mangler scyk swarm came in second and was the only matchup that was giving my tie swarm problems. The fat turret lists I tabled with a decent chunk of my ships still on the board and plenty of time left.

Actually i used M3a's as an example as i know they are considered 'below par' but i actually usually do alright with them. I've played three games with 4 M3a's led by serissue with a stealth device. The four cartel spacers have an assortment of cannons. won two , lost one. Its not a great amount to base a theory on but given I *knew* when i broke formation to ease up a mate new to the game it was bad idea.. and well thats when i lost that one, if i'd have stuck to the plan im pretty sure it would be a 100 per cent success rate against three different players.

Still not a sensible study group but im not personally convinced they are awful but was looking for a '1 shield' example and kind of just avoiding an argument by saying 'i know it shouldnt do well'

But.. im not playing timed games so i can do a lot of evading and stay in formation, hit, disengage etc when i want to.

How about weighting wins differently? Eliminating the entire enemy squadron would grant more points than a tie-breaker win. While it still leaves the MOV intact, it adds incentive to finish off your opponent and not play it safe. In addition, any players who rely on protecting point fortresses for wins won't be able to keep up those who are able to consistently finish off their opponent. Maybe something as simple as:

Eliminate entire enemy squadron = 2 points

Win based on tie-breaker at time = 1 points

Losing = 0 points

You could also get more complicated and do something along the lines of:

Eliminate entire enemy squadron = 3 points

Win based on tie-breaker at time = 2 points

Lose based on tie-breaker = 1 point

Losing = 0 points

This is far from perfect, but it'd be simple to implement and wouldn't cause a lot of upheaval.

I can agree to part of the concept but not the overall execution.

I'm not sure we need to go all the way to "completely destroyed the enemy" to award a Full Win which is 5 points. Back when 33 points was the break there were many calls of that being too high and resulted in too many partial victories which are only 3 points. Dropping that down to 12 points and then using MoV as the tie breaker may have been too much so I would like to see that value moved back up; the suggestion that this be set to the cheapest ship in the smallest squadron is interesting but even something like 25 points would be better.

When only a partial victory is scored, which would be more common if the MoV needs to be greater, I could see giving he who suffered a "close defeat" could get 1 tournament point. Partial Victory plus Close Defeat equals 4 tournament points which would match the 2/2 that a draw gives. Although some people see Draws as being as bad as the Plague I think they should be seen for the reality they are and in very close games (say 6 points or less) these could be scored as a Draw.

It's not clear to me how removing the distinction between "draw" and "won on tiebreakers" is going to tilt the balance away from durable turrets. There seems to be a "Step two: ???" missing, as it seems to me that durable EU turrets allow the turret player to decide between engaging or forcing the draw by running away.

I won a small local tourney last week (only the second tourney I've ever played). The guy with the mangler scyk swarm came in second and was the only matchup that was giving my tie swarm problems. The fat turret lists I tabled with a decent chunk of my ships still on the board and plenty of time left.

Actually i used M3a's as an example as i know they are considered 'below par' but i actually usually do alright with them. I've played three games with 4 M3a's led by serissue with a stealth device. The four cartel spacers have an assortment of cannons. won two , lost one. Its not a great amount to base a theory on but given I *knew* when i broke formation to ease up a mate new to the game it was bad idea.. and well thats when i lost that one, if i'd have stuck to the plan im pretty sure it would be a 100 per cent success rate against three different players.

I'd say, if there is a problem, it's not that. Rather that outguessing the turret player reaps insufficient rewards. Compare a successful block on gunner/pred/c3po/title Han to the same on a IG88 attempting a S-loop.

Correctly guessing and blocking Han means denying him the evade-token and lining up a few shots. Your still taking heavy return fire and Han is probably in a pretty decent position to get out of dodge next turn. IG on the other hand just took a stress and is facing away from the battle. He is also pretty screwed without his actions and you hopefully closed in to range 1-2 with your other fighters to negate autothrusters.

I'd for one would like to see an upgrade that would grant greater payback for outguessing the turret-player. Something along the lines of intimidation but a bit stronger and taking up a different upgrade slot. How about and illict with the following effect

If another ship performs a movement which causes it to overlap this ship, assign two ion tokens to that ship and then discard this card.

The problem with 'shields down' is that if i take M3as (and i know you wouldnt do well if you did) as a swarm,

I won a small local tourney last week (only the second tourney I've ever played). The guy with the mangler scyk swarm came in second and was the only matchup that was giving my tie swarm problems. The fat turret lists I tabled with a decent chunk of my ships still on the board and plenty of time left.

Actually i used M3a's as an example as i know they are considered 'below par' but i actually usually do alright with them. I've played three games with 4 M3a's led by serissue with a stealth device. The four cartel spacers have an assortment of cannons. won two , lost one. Its not a great amount to base a theory on but given I *knew* when i broke formation to ease up a mate new to the game it was bad idea.. and well thats when i lost that one, if i'd have stuck to the plan im pretty sure it would be a 100 per cent success rate against three different players.

Still not a sensible study group but im not personally convinced they are awful but was looking for a '1 shield' example and kind of just avoiding an argument by saying 'i know it shouldnt do well'

But.. im not playing timed games so i can do a lot of evading and stay in formation, hit, disengage etc when i want to.

Well using a <half hull for 10 point system and 1 poitn for shields down the MA-3 becomes rather good at clottign the point hemmorage.

With that system the MA-3 will be

1. 1st hit =1 point
2. 2nd hit = 1 point
3. 3rd hit =14 points

when compared to a Tie Fighter

1. 1st hit = 0 points
2. 2nd hit = 10 points
3. 3rd hit = 12 points