So the 1/2 points for a 1/2 damage or less large ship is only a factor when a game goes to time correct?

So the 1/2 points for a 1/2 damage or less large ship is only a factor when a game goes to time correct?

Technically, yes, based on Alex's commentary on the change...no. I suspect there will be an update to add the partial points to the MoV calculation as well.

It has to count for mov. That IS PART of figuring out who won. Look at it this way. A 3 interceptor aces list plays a brobots list. No ships are destroyed but each int has 1 hull left. The brobots have lost their shields. The int player now wins with 150 mov. You can't win and have mov indicate a draw.

FFG does a great job again on this big base ship rule! I love that it only affects timed games, so Decimator and Falcon squads can still 100-0 an enemy squad, which in 75 minute rounds, happens 90% of the time anyways!

This one is curious. In the Tournament Rules - End of Match section:

At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships are destroyed. The
player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win, and the
opposing player receives a loss. If neither player has any remaining ships,
the game ends in a draw.

At the end of a game round, if a player has destroyed all of his opponent’s ships, his opponent’s squad is worth 100 squad points, even if it is worth fewer squad points to begin with. If both players destroy an identical number of squad points, each player receives a Margin of Victory of 100 points. If a player concedes the match, all of his remaining ships are destroyed.

The phrases with "At the end of a game round " is a new addition. I don't know what was literally there before the change. I'm pretty sure in the past the game was over as soon as you destroyed all your opponents ships. This suggests otherwise. It suggests that the game doesn't end until the end of the round. It's a subtle difference, but I can see one change that would matter.

Let's say there are two conner nets floating on the board. Player 1 has a PS2 ship with 1 hull remaining that is forced to fly over the conner net during his next activation. Player 2 is in the same situation with a PS4 ship with 1 hull. Player 1s PS2 ship is going to move first, run over the Conner Net, and die. In the old rules, the game would immediately end, and Player2 with his PS4 ship would get a full win. But, under the new rules, even though Player 1s PS2 ship has died from the Conner Net, the game round isn't over, Player 2s PS4 ship must also activate and hit the Conner Net in front of him. This will result in the destruction of Player 2s last ship as well. The game will now end in a draw in a timed game, but it will be a victory for the player with initiative in an elimination match.

It needs a corner case to matter, but it's something to keep in mind.

Such great news, PWTs were too strong and a part of it was due to tourney rules. They still have a slight advantage in timed games, as a 2-ship list is much easier to finish games with then a swarm. And they're stilll quite strong, it's not like the majority of pwt wins hinged on killing two enemy ships and runnin away with two hull left.

As someone noted, fat turrets often tend to wipe the board in time, so it seems to be a fair change, moving the meta a bit toward small ships - which is good,in my personal opinion. Also,it makes sense with Brobots,which often lose half or more health but you lose as nonę dies. However, it makes swarms even stronger, which is also good for FFG sales, as you need to spend loads of money to buy eg. 8Zs or 8 Ties.

• All obstacles are now welcomed

Debris clouds from the Raider aren't included in those allowed for regular tournaments, although they seem to be welcome in Epic tournaments ("obstacle tokens [..] from any X-wing product".

Which is a pity, as I have no intention of getting a Deci or 2400, and so am still stuck with those boring rocks.

Haha! I have to laugh at all the haters who said it was too complicated to divide a ship's points in half. Also, to those that said it was only a handful of fat turret agitators who felt the meta was stale.

It's a welcome change. Death to the meta. Long live the meta.

You're laughing at a straw man.

The partial MOV system advocated by Nova Squadron Podcast and argued for by many others was far more complicated than the new rule. It involved a full squad point to hit point calculation.

Stoked with the change. I was previously against partial MOV for fluff reasons and against the NSP version for calculation hastles. I think the FFG change is clear, simple and will make tournament games more enjoyable (gameplay is more important than fluff) and results more reflective of the skill level of the players involved.

The rule for the large ships (50% points for 50% suffered hits) is totally absurd. They should have modified it with a system based upon the number of total wounds (shields + hull). Let's say that a ship with 10 or more wounds (we could call it "armored" as a reminder) awards the opponent with the 50% of its point value if he manages to (at least) halve its wounds at the end of the game.
The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

Which is a pity, as I have no intention of getting a Deci or 2400, and so am still stuck with those boring rocks.

I feel your pain.

I have no intention of buying a Ferrari so I'm stuck with my boring Ford Focus.

The rule for the large ships (50% points for 50% suffered hits) is totally absurd. They should have modified it with a system based upon the number of total wounds (shields + hull). Let's say that a ship with 10 or more wounds (we could call it "armored" as a reminder) awards the opponent with the 50% of its point value if he manages to (at least) halve its wounds at the end of the game.

The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

Using hit points as a measure for how difficult a ship is to destroy is profoundly flawed. A TIE Punisher (or a Lambda, or a Firespray) isn't harder to kill than an Aggressor. Personally, I'd have applied the "half points for half damage" metric to any ship costing more than, say, 40 Squad Points rather than use the blanket "large base" qualification but that's just me. The meta's kind of awash with new ways to hurt small-base aces now anyway.

I struggle to see how the Punisher is remotely similar to Fat Hat, Deci, Aggressor or HLC Outrider.

And a 50+ point punisher is just not such a great investment - truckload of ordinance that won't survive long enough to be used.

I don't see Miranda as such an enormous threat either. Sure, she has a great ability, but at 38 points with TLT and 3PO, isn't she extremely vulnerable to both cheaper TLTs, swarms and high PS arc dodgers? I'm reasonably confident I could take out Miranda with Jake, not to mention Darth or Soontir.

As a small ship she's also very vulnerable to ion weapons. Hit her with an Ion Pulse Missile, sic the TIE Fighters on her. Ion Turrets can't be arc dodged, so those Bs (or Zs) will be on her next turn.

The rule for the large ships (50% points for 50% suffered hits) is totally absurd. They should have modified it with a system based upon the number of total wounds (shields + hull). Let's say that a ship with 10 or more wounds (we could call it "armored" as a reminder) awards the opponent with the 50% of its point value if he manages to (at least) halve its wounds at the end of the game.

The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

Errrr... YOUR rule wouldn't award any points for damaging a Punisher either. It's only got 9 hit points.

Using hit points as a measure for how difficult a ship is to destroy is profoundly flawed. A TIE Punisher (or a Lambda, or a Firespray) isn't harder to kill than an Aggressor. Personally, I'd have applied the "half points for half damage" metric to any ship costing more than, say, 40 Squad Points rather than use the blanket "large base" qualification but that's just me. The meta's kind of awash with new ways to hurt small-base aces now anyway.

3 green dice on the aggressor versus the 1 or 2? An agressor certainly IS harder to kill than the others you mentioned which is why brobots are so strong. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. The forced change in strategy for the large based ships IS going to make a difference in the game but I'm not sure it will truly be as intended. As I've said before, I only ran a large turret once in tournament but I've never had any issues taking them down. I think a lack of strategy against them is what hurts people. Why folks think they should be able to run any build they come up with at a tournament is beyond puzzling to me. Certain lists are always going to prove to be more effective overall.

Take a look at the Nationals this year alone which is before this nerf.

Polish - won by 4 unhinged tlt thugs

Canada - won by soontir and 3 tempests with AC

Slovak and Czech nationals - won by hlc brobots b+c

German/Austrian/Swiss - won by b+c hlc mangler brobots

Kuwait - won by Dash and Chewie

US - won by Dash and 2 blues

In the above, no 2 winning lists are alike. 2 lists have PWT's. 2 lists have brobots and the other 2 have other ships again. This seems fairly well distributed to me indicating that a nerf really wasn't needed at this time but I guess thats just my take on it from looking at what has actually WON large tournaments like regionals and nationals.

A TIE Punisher isn't harder to kill than an Aggressor.

3 green dice on the aggressor versus the 1 or 2? An agressor certainly IS harder to kill than the others you mentioned which is why brobots are so strong.

I don't see Miranda as such an enormous threat either. Sure, she has a great ability, but at 38 points with TLT and 3PO, isn't she extremely vulnerable to both cheaper TLTs, swarms and high PS arc dodgers? I'm reasonably confident I could take out Miranda with Jake, not to mention Darth or Soontir.

As a small ship she's also very vulnerable to ion weapons. Hit her with an Ion Pulse Missile, sic the TIE Fighters on her. Ion Turrets can't be arc dodged, so those Bs (or Zs) will be on her next turn.

Having played against a number of lists at tournament with the following list has shown it was tougher to play against Miranda than soontir or vader.

Kavil+TLT+Predator

Drea+TLT+Unhinged

Trandoshan Slaver+Bossk+Gunner+Tactician

My first tournament I went 5-0 with this against soontir, vader, palpmobile, dash, miranda, etc.

Soontir and vader were very easy to get rid of. Miranda was among the hardest. In fact the only list I completely tabled without losing a ship was the Soontir and 3 tempest with AC list that won Canadian Nationals.

Having played against lists with Miranda in them quite a bit lately I think you all are underestimating her potency. Time will tell. TLT will be the next thing all the whiners want nerfed.

A TIE Punisher isn't harder to kill than an Aggressor.

3 green dice on the aggressor versus the 1 or 2? An agressor certainly IS harder to kill than the others you mentioned which is why brobots are so strong.

Read what I wrote again.

right - too early and not enough coffee yet - lol.

My apologies.

The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

In order to get a single shield off of a IG 88, you have to get through at least three dice, sometimes autothrusters, and a token. It wouldn't be surprising to destroy a punisher around the same time the aggressor has just lost its last shield.

The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

In order to get a single shield off of a IG 88, you have to get through at least three dice, sometimes autothrusters, and a token. It wouldn't be surprising to destroy a punisher around the same time the aggressor has just lost its last shield.

While that is true, I haven't had any issues taking down Aggressors. You focus on them and they can't have all the luck on the green dice. Last tournament I was in, I took an agressor down in 2 rounds with the list I posted above(Kavil, Drea, Slaver). I just focused on it and took it down. I try to build lists that are well rounded taking all kinds of things into account and with TLT it is much easier to take down these monsters than it was before.

Yes, sorry. I typed too fast... The Punisher has indeed 9 wounds.

That's not the point I wanted to underline. I'll try and explain: the reason for this kind of nerf has to be an answer to overpowered starship, fact that results in a stagnant tournament meta. As Ynot correctly notes, the winning tournament lists are many, and quite different. This probably means that, after all, there wasn't such an unbalance among the different ships, when adequately moved and managed in-game. This is the first point.

The second point is: even if there is such an unbalance, it is likely limited to one or two ships. In this case, maybe, we can assume that their problem is the excessive resilience, which leads to an anomalous capability to retain their point value while suffering a lot of wounds. The same amount of wounds, if applied to other ships, bring to the opponent a lot of victory points. That is, a VT-49 Decimator that costs, let's say, 50 points, needs 16 wounds to be destroyed, whilst one less wound would only take it to 1 remaining hull, awarding no victory point in the old rules. Conversely, 15 wounds are sufficient for killing 5 base Tie Fighters, with a cost of 60 points. This might seem unfair.

It's true, you have to consider the agility value, that, in the previous example, makes the difference. We are confronting a large ship with 0 agility with 5 fighters with 3 agility. That said, killing the Decimator could nevertheless take an excessive time and I can understand the frustration of a player who gets no points while hitting and damaging this ship (or a YT, or a Slave) a lot. However, with the recent boost given to bombs, agility has lost some efficacy (and I have learned this at my own expense).
BUT - third point - consider instead a more close comparison. Aggressor VS Tie Punisher. The latter only has 1 agility, but has a lower cost and one less wound. It resembles more a Firespray from this point of view, maybe. The point is, the difference among a Punisher and these two large ships is minimal. Why should be treated in such a different way, victory point-wise?

Please think about the resilience of two Aggressor in a meta populated by bombers (K-wing and Punishers). I find a lot of reasons for not fielding the two robots in such an environment. Remember, also, that the 50% even includes the upgrades! Moreover: why nerfing every large ship, if the problem is only limited to some of them?

The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.

In order to get a single shield off of a IG 88, you have to get through at least three dice, sometimes autothrusters, and a token. It wouldn't be surprising to destroy a punisher around the same time the aggressor has just lost its last shield.

While that is true, I haven't had any issues taking down Aggressors. You focus on them and they can't have all the luck on the green dice. Last tournament I was in, I took an agressor down in 2 rounds with the list I posted above(Kavil, Drea, Slaver). I just focused on it and took it down. I try to build lists that are well rounded taking all kinds of things into account and with TLT it is much easier to take down these monsters than it was before.

I wasn't addressing any of your posts or complaining. I was trying to point out that the "nerf" is pretty fair and that it's still easier to score more points off the punisher than the IG.

As I said, if it'd been up to me (and you can all thank your lucky stars it isn't) I would have applied the "half hit points, half score" rule to any ship costing more than 40 points. I could probably be argued plus-minus 3 points as the cutoff.

That being said, I totally get why that's not the route FFG went.

The problem isn't that it's frustrating to knock 15 HP off a Decimator and score nothing for it. The problem certainly isn't that people expect every list to be viable, or don't know how to play against fat turrets (seriously. They've dominated the tournament meta for like two years, people can't HELP but know how they should play against them by now).

The problem is that fat ships distort the game in a way that even the best* small-based ships can't. Their sheer number of upgrade slots combined with their large number of hit points leverages the nature of a timed game to make them more effective than they would be otherwise, because more than half the list's points were locked up behind stacked defensive upgrades and masses of hit points. That's the issue this rule change addresses. It doesn't make large-based ships less potent, it just means that players aren't rewarded as much for (intentionally or otherwise) exploiting the difference between a timed game and an untimed game.

Here's what large-based ships are getting in return for having their squad point value awarded in two chunks:

1) The ability to displace themselves much further than a small-based ship when boosting or barrel-rolling. Rainbow Dash is arguably the best arc-dodger in the game. EU Falcon and Chirpy aren't far behind.

2) The ability to move faster than any small-based ship, making it easy to "kite" attackers and defeat them in detail, or just to run for the hills and preserve MOV late in the game.

3) The ability to combine EPT, multiple crew and other upgrade slots to make themselves far less dependant on action economy than the top-end small-based ships for offensive punch / defensive survivability. A Connor Net on Fat Han is an irritant. A Connor Net on an Aggressor is an inconvenience. A Connor Net on Soontir is death.

That's... a pretty good deal. And yeah, I can see the argument that fat turret / brobot dominance needed addressing but stuff like cheap Lambdas and Firesprays and YV-666s are also weakened by the change. But those ships generally cost fewer points, so losing 12 points for your Doomshuttle getting down to half HP is much less significant than losing 30 points for Fat Han being half-dead.

* - Exception: the Phantom Classic. And that **** got nerfed PDQ.

That's not the point I wanted to underline. I'll try and explain: the reason for this kind of nerf has to be an answer to overpowered starship...

No, it doesn't. I wish they had applied it to all ships, regardless of size or cost, but even so--it's a reaction to the fact that loading up a ship with a Large base and a lot of upgrade slots grants an advantage completely separate from the actual effectiveness of the ship.

That is, running a pair of 50-point ships is (or rather, was) more effective than taking 4 25-point ships even if the two lists had identical matchups and win-loss records. The 50-point ships don't generate MoV for their opponents as quickly or reliably, so they offer a sizeable benefit in terms of your tiebreaker score in a tournament, and also have a chance to win matches the 25-point ships would have lost.

You can picture it as a nerf, if that's a useful framework for you, but it's actually helping to counter a metagame advantage enjoyed by Large ships. (And it doesn't actually go all the way toward eliminating that advantage.)

Looking at the winning lists is going to completely miss the point of this rule change. The issue is definitely not on the final table which is usually untimed or the single elimination rounds which are usually longer. The issue is in swiss rounds where a list with two 50pt ships has a marked advantage over a list with five 20pt ships. I think this may be the best thing FFG has done this year in terms of promoting competitive play, Bravo!

Why restrict to large base only? Large. Base. Boost. This does sort hamper Firespray and YV-666 pilots a bit but they don't have the late game damage mitigation of Falcon and Deci or the crazy agility of BroBots so they are likely to get killed all the way dead anyway.