It IS a shame that this rule further weakens Firesprays. And I'd have been OK with the rule being applied to expensive small ships too (I think if you apply it to EVERY small ship you lose the benefit of having the rule in the first place, which seems to be to make allowances for how difficult it is to hurt ships that are loaded with stacked arc-dodging/defensive abilities).But Brobots and fat turrets actually having to outfly the opposition to earn their wins? Oh no. Shame. How awful. You mustn't.

It WOULD be interesting if it applied to all ships costing more than 40 pts or something. Though, people purposely not building more than 39pts per ship would soon become annoying. It just seems more fair, and makes more sense to me to cover all ships that cost a certain point level. Corran Horn at 46 pts is certainly the equivalent of a "Point Fortress".

The rule seems to be working as intended. Dealing 4 damage to an IG is the equivalent of doing 4 damage to a 3 agility small base ship and killing it, granting points. We really should get points for doing that same thing to a big ship.

Miranda being pretty happy at 38 points would just love that.

I participated in this tournament as well, but had a different experience with the new rule. I flew Bossk and Boba. I went 3-1, and none of my games went to time, all were full wins. All 3 of my wins were MoV by ~25 points due to either Boba or Bossk being off the board and the other being less than half health. So I lost about 75 points over what I would have with old scoring, which makes a huge difference during championship season when trying to make top cut.

The rule was implemented because large ships allowed "players to run out the clock and eke out wins in games they may have otherwise lost", quoted from the article. This was not the case in any of my wins. I played aggressively, took out all the ships before time, and otherwise played the game as intended.

I'm aware that this decision was made to punish the 1-2 hull Han's that run from 2 full health B Wings, and run out the clock. What I don't understand is why this is being implemented on all results and not just those that go to time. As most of you say that players shouldn't be rewarded by not being able to close on Miranda with 2 Brobots, someone that brings down two Decimators to 1 hull each but gets destroyed before time shouldn't be rewarded either for not concentrating fire.

Timed matches should be the only ones implementing this new rule, not all. That's the only gripe I have with it.

I participated in this tournament as well, but had a different experience with rhe new rule. I flew Bossk and Boba. I went 3-1, and none of my games went to time, all were full wins. All 3 of my wins were MoV by ~25 points due to either Boba or Bossk being off the board and the other being less than half health. So I lost about 75 points over what I would have with old scoring, which makes a huge difference during championship season when trying to make top cut.

The rule was implemented because large ships allowed "players to run out the clock and eke out wins in games they may have otherwise lost", quoted from the article. This was not the case in any of my wins. I played aggressively, took out all the ships before time, and otherwise played the game as intended.

I'm aware that this decision was made to punish the 1-2 hull Han's that run from 2 full health B Wings, and run out the clock. What I don't understand is why this is being implemented on all results and not just those that go to time. As most of you say that players shouldn't be rewarded by not being able to close on Miranda with 2 Brobots, someone that brings down two Decimators two 1 hull each but gets destroyed before time shouldn't be rewarded either for not concentrating fire.

Timed matches should be the only ones implementing this new rule, not all. That's the only gripe I have with it.

I have two answers. The first is to slightly correct your description of the OP: the problem wasn't that the Brobots couldn't close with Miranda, it's that they didn't close with Miranda. The Brobot player was either completely outflown by Miranda, or (more likely) is accustomed to trying to hoard his own MoV and/or keep his ships on the board even if the cost to do so means stalling his own offense. And the problem with that is that it leads to slow, boring games in the short term, and in the long term it leads to a metagame with very small lists full of very expensive ships.

And my second answer is to describe your game in slightly unflattering terms. What you're saying is that in every game you lost an expensive ship and had another badly damaged, but you'd rather the score didn't recognize that because it doesn't work in your favor.

But consider what would have happened if you had been running a four ship list with exactly the same offense, defense, and matchups as your Boba Fett/Bossk. You would have lost three ships, with the last one unhurt or lightly damaged. Your opponent would have earned credit for all three of them, and the score would quite correctly reflect that you won, but by a relatively narrow margin.

If a game is relatively close, as this one appears to be, the final score should tell the same story whether you're running 50 points of Bossk or two 25-point Y-wings. It didn't before, but now it does.

It being exclusive to matches that go to time would also incentivise agressive play even more since there is more to gain.

I participated in this tournament as well, but had a different experience with the new rule. I flew Bossk and Boba. I went 3-1, and none of my games went to time, all were full wins. All 3 of my wins were MoV by ~25 points due to either Boba or Bossk being off the board and the other being less than half health. So I lost about 75 points over what I would have with old scoring, which makes a huge difference during championship season when trying to make top cut.

The rule was implemented because large ships allowed "players to run out the clock and eke out wins in games they may have otherwise lost", quoted from the article. This was not the case in any of my wins. I played aggressively, took out all the ships before time, and otherwise played the game as intended.

I'm aware that this decision was made to punish the 1-2 hull Han's that run from 2 full health B Wings, and run out the clock. What I don't understand is why this is being implemented on all results and not just those that go to time. As most of you say that players shouldn't be rewarded by not being able to close on Miranda with 2 Brobots, someone that brings down two Decimators to 1 hull each but gets destroyed before time shouldn't be rewarded either for not concentrating fire.

Timed matches should be the only ones implementing this new rule, not all. That's the only gripe I have with it.

I agree with this for a few reasons...

First, for those of you that think this change is to "punish" big ships, you're in the wrong frame of mind. I've come to understand the reason for the MOV change (I believe). Big ships are not "cheap" and ARE balanced, and DO have a place in this game.

This game is best played when there IS NOT a time limit, but this is not a possibility in a competitive format. (FFG seems to agree with me here, hence a championship game does not have a time limit.) The nature of the MOV change seems to be in the hopes of creating the feel of an un-timed game in a limited time format. That being said, if the game DOES NOT go to time, and one player is the clear winner, why would ships that have not been killed be scored? The winning player flew them correctly. He kept them from being destroyed AND killed all of the enemy pilots inside of the time limit.

Some of you have answered that had the player ran two small ships instead of the one big ship that was damaged, then that player would have lost a small ship and the new MOV reflects that. This is not true! I break nearly dead ships away from battle regularly and either force my opponent to chase it or run the risk of it flanking in a few rounds and getting free shots. Four hits on an IG could have just been 2 hits on to separate small base ships. I find this argument flawed.

That being said I agree that for the most part this MOV change is good, BUT it should only be put into effect when a game goes to time.

I participated in this tournament as well, but had a different experience with the new rule. I flew Bossk and Boba. I went 3-1, and none of my games went to time, all were full wins. All 3 of my wins were MoV by ~25 points due to either Boba or Bossk being off the board and the other being less than half health. So I lost about 75 points over what I would have with old scoring, which makes a huge difference during championship season when trying to make top cut.

The rule was implemented because large ships allowed "players to run out the clock and eke out wins in games they may have otherwise lost", quoted from the article. This was not the case in any of my wins. I played aggressively, took out all the ships before time, and otherwise played the game as intended.

I'm aware that this decision was made to punish the 1-2 hull Han's that run from 2 full health B Wings, and run out the clock. What I don't understand is why this is being implemented on all results and not just those that go to time. As most of you say that players shouldn't be rewarded by not being able to close on Miranda with 2 Brobots, someone that brings down two Decimators to 1 hull each but gets destroyed before time shouldn't be rewarded either for not concentrating fire.

Timed matches should be the only ones implementing this new rule, not all. That's the only gripe I have with it.

While I understand the article read this way, it wasn't just that. The first statement in the article was "Previously, heavy hitting, hard-to-kill ships enjoyed an unintended advantage in tournament play: they could act as a sort of bank vault for squad points,...."

Your wins, under the old system, held a significant tiebreaker advantage over lists that had broken their own lists down into smaller increments with the same record, as Vorpal explained above. Point fortresses were a good investment for that reason alone.

I participated in this tournament as well, but had a different experience with rhe new rule. I flew Bossk and Boba. I went 3-1, and none of my games went to time, all were full wins. All 3 of my wins were MoV by ~25 points due to either Boba or Bossk being off the board and the other being less than half health. So I lost about 75 points over what I would have with old scoring, which makes a huge difference during championship season when trying to make top cut.The rule was implemented because large ships allowed "players to run out the clock and eke out wins in games they may have otherwise lost", quoted from the article. This was not the case in any of my wins. I played aggressively, took out all the ships before time, and otherwise played the game as intended.I'm aware that this decision was made to punish the 1-2 hull Han's that run from 2 full health B Wings, and run out the clock. What I don't understand is why this is being implemented on all results and not just those that go to time. As most of you say that players shouldn't be rewarded by not being able to close on Miranda with 2 Brobots, someone that brings down two Decimators two 1 hull each but gets destroyed before time shouldn't be rewarded either for not concentrating fire.Timed matches should be the only ones implementing this new rule, not all. That's the only gripe I have with it.

I have two answers. The first is to slightly correct your description of the OP: the problem wasn't that the Brobots couldn't close with Miranda, it's that they didn't close with Miranda. The Brobot player was either completely outflown by Miranda, or (more likely) is accustomed to trying to hoard his own MoV and/or keep his ships on the board even if the cost to do so means stalling his own offense. And the problem with that is that it leads to slow, boring games in the short term, and in the long term it leads to a metagame with very small lists full of very expensive ships. And my second answer is to describe your game in slightly unflattering terms. What you're saying is that in every game you lost an expensive ship and had another badly damaged, but you'd rather the score didn't recognize that because it doesn't work in your favor. But consider what would have happened if you had been running a four ship list with exactly the same offense, defense, and matchups as your Boba Fett/Bossk. You would have lost three ships, with the last one unhurt or lightly damaged. Your opponent would have earned credit for all three of them, and the score would quite correctly reflect that you won, but by a relatively narrow margin. If a game is relatively close, as this one appears to be, the final score should tell the same story whether you're running 50 points of Bossk or two 25-point Y-wings. It didn't before, but now it does.

I agree with your first point as far as slow play, defensive play and the like. But the end doesn't necessarily give you the full story. How long did it take to take down the other ships in the list? We're they ships that were relatively harder to kill, but also posed a bigger threat than Miranda? What if it took them a good 60-65 to take down the rest, and was finally able to bear guns on Miranda, but wasn't able to quickly enough?

Just like your assumptions on what happened in my games. If my last few rounds was a full health Bossk chasing a Y Wing, and taking 6 damage before killing it necessarily "close"?

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

You're comparing football's 9th tiebreaker for standings to X-wing's first, so coaches in football can approach a blowout differently and so it's not as clear from the final score as it should be in X-wing.

I'm also not convinced Bossk chasing a Y is 40-0.

I like the new rule, but I'd rather see half points at below 50% of hull, not at 50% of hull and shields combined. This seems more balanced

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

You're comparing football's 9th tiebreaker for standings to X-wing's first, so coaches in football can approach a blowout differently and so it's not as clear from the final score as it should be in X-wing.

I'm also not convinced Bossk chasing a Y is 40-0.

We'll agree to disagree. The problem existed in matches that go to time. There was nothing wrong (in my opinion) in matches that were completed within the time limit. Hopefully I'm overreacting, but I guess I'll have nothing to worry about if I destroy all ships, like everyone always suggests lol

I like the new rule, but I'd rather see half points at below 50% of hull, not at 50% of hull and shields combined. This seems more balanced

That doesn't make any sense except from a thematic point of view. And in tournament play gameplay balance is far, far, FAR more important than theme.

Just like your assumptions on what happened in my games. If my last few rounds was a full health Bossk chasing a Y Wing, and taking 6 damage before killing it necessarily "close"?

...yes? There's no real doubt about the outcome, but it's going to cost you something to clean up that Y-wing. The cost was determined by the dice, but it turned out that cleaning up a 25-ish Y-wing cost you half of your 50-ish Bossk. How is that unfair?

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

Knowing the game ended up at 40-28 gives me more information. Moreover, what you're saying is that if the score was 40-0 until the fourth quarter, then (unless the losing team somehow turns it around) we should ignore the fourth quarter when we report the final score.

Just like your assumptions on what happened in my games. If my last few rounds was a full health Bossk chasing a Y Wing, and taking 6 damage before killing it necessarily "close"?

...yes? There's no real doubt about the outcome, but it's going to cost you something to clean up that Y-wing. The cost was determined by the dice, but it turned out that cleaning up a 25-ish Y-wing cost you half of your 50-ish Bossk. How is that unfair?

I think you just answered your own question. To earn that last 20 to 25 points, the winning player lost 25 points. This does not promote more aggressive play. If half points were ONLY awarded if games went to time, this would encourage and reward players who fight it out till the end.

If you are running a list that consistently is not finishing games then there should be some kind of negative feedback for that. This seems good.

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

You're comparing football's 9th tiebreaker for standings to X-wing's first, so coaches in football can approach a blowout differently and so it's not as clear from the final score as it should be in X-wing.

I'm also not convinced Bossk chasing a Y is 40-0.

Yea, I exaggerated a little

We'll agree to disagree. The problem existed in matches that go to time. There was nothing wrong (in my opinion) in matches that were completed within the time limit. Hopefully I'm overreacting, but I guess I'll have nothing to worry about if I destroy all ships, like everyone always suggests lol

Fair enough, but the problem did not just exist in matches that go to time. It existed as a significant MoV advantage for two ship lists. I actually looked at regional 1 loss records recently and lists that had 4+ ships for 40+ player tourneys. 4 ships builds appeared twice as often near the bottom of MoV as the top amongst lists with the same record.

Good players that I knew understood that bringing 4 or more small ships (and no point fortress) were much less likely to make the cut if they ended up with a record where the tiebreakers mattered. Essentially, we all felt those lists had to be "one win better" than two ship lists to consider bringing them.

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

You're comparing football's 9th tiebreaker for standings to X-wing's first, so coaches in football can approach a blowout differently and so it's not as clear from the final score as it should be in X-wing.

I'm also not convinced Bossk chasing a Y is 40-0.

Yea, I exaggerated a little

We'll agree to disagree. The problem existed in matches that go to time. There was nothing wrong (in my opinion) in matches that were completed within the time limit. Hopefully I'm overreacting, but I guess I'll have nothing to worry about if I destroy all ships, like everyone always suggests lol

Fair enough, but the problem did not just exist in matches that go to time. It existed as a significant MoV advantage for two ship lists. I actually looked at regional 1 loss records recently and lists that had 4+ ships for 40+ player tourneys. 4 ships builds appeared twice as often near the bottom of MoV as the top amongst lists with the same record.

Good players that I knew understood that bringing 4 or more small ships (and no point fortress) were much less likely to make the cut if they ended up with a record where the tiebreakers mattered. Essentially, we all felt those lists had to be "one win better" than two ship lists to consider bringing them.

This, right here, is why I agree with applying the half points rule to all matches whether or not they go to time.

Just like your assumptions on what happened in my games. If my last few rounds was a full health Bossk chasing a Y Wing, and taking 6 damage before killing it necessarily "close"?

...yes? There's no real doubt about the outcome, but it's going to cost you something to clean up that Y-wing. The cost was determined by the dice, but it turned out that cleaning up a 25-ish Y-wing cost you half of your 50-ish Bossk. How is that unfair?

Let's compare it to sports. If a football score is 40-28, but the score was 40-0 before the last quarter, which tells you more how the game actually went?

Knowing the game ended up at 40-28 gives me more information. Moreover, what you're saying is that if the score was 40-0 until the fourth quarter, then (unless the losing team somehow turns it around) we should ignore the fourth quarter when we report the final score.

The point I'm trying to make is the rule is to keep people from using the time limit as an advantage. The point of the game is to be aggressive and continue the fight until all ships on one side are destroyed. It was my understanding that the best way to win was to have good target priority and concentrate all guns on one target at a time. It was also my understanding that you paid a premium by bringing less bodies with a large ship than a small ship, but guaranteeing that half of your fire power wouldn't be diminished if two ships of equal value where fielded instead. This also came at a price of a larger hull that was harder to maneuver around ships and asteroids, limiting mobility and increasing risk of being blocked and/or losing actions.

I believe the game is balanced when it is played until all ships are destroyed, as far as large and small ships are concerned. Issues come up when games go to time. Maybe MoV is flawed in itself? Is there a more accurate representation of the game state at the end of the match? What of small ships with regenerative abilities? Are they not considered point vaulting also?

Also, the issue was never all large bases, and it targets ships that were never part of the problem (Lamdba Shuttles, Firesprays). This decision will only tilt the scales in the direction of small ships, and there will be another balance issue that will have to be addressed as soon as it is discovered (which is not necessarily a bad thing, an evolving meta is good so that it keeps things fresh).

I just think the rule could've have been implemented better. The issue wasn't large ships as a whole, it was point vaulting, and there are only a select few ships that can do so, both large and small.

Good players that I knew understood that bringing 4 or more small ships (and no point fortress) were much less likely to make the cut if they ended up with a record where the tiebreakers mattered. Essentially, we all felt those lists had to be "one win better" than two ship lists to consider bringing them.

Thank you. This is a brilliant and brief way to talk about a complicated idea.

So yesterday I TO-ed a friendly store tournament with the new MOV rules. It did not turn out well. Small based ships had a HUGE advantage. Two players were running bro-bots and almost all of their wins were only partial wins because of the new MOV. One of my losses was to a bro-bot build and I felt dirty at the end of the game. He couldn't kill off my last ship (Meranda) and I had done half damage to both of his. The final score was 57 to 49, even though he still had BOTH of his ships and killed 2 out of 3 of mine. I shook his hand, told him he wiped the floor with my list, and gave him my condolences.

If you haven't played with the new MOV yet, even if you're happy about it now, you won't be once you get a few games under your belt. This was a poor change. The system was fine as it was. Now it is more complicated and unfair to large base ships.

It removes the advantage of large based ships. The brobots now behave like four ships.

If removing an unfair advantage is unfair, I'm not sure how you'd make it fair.

If half points were ONLY awarded if games went to time, this would encourage and reward players who fight it out till the end.

If they complete it only affects MoV, which is a tiebreaker for equal points. It makes a two ship list's MoV comparable to a 4 ship list's MoV when the players play equally well.

Maybe MoV is flawed in itself?

It is, but...

Is there a more accurate representation of the game state at the end of the match?

...I haven't been able to come up with one.

What of small ships with regenerative abilities? Are they not considered point vaulting also?

They're much less common, they're typically not as good at running away from incoming fire, and they're also typically easier to beat if you focus fire due to having fewer hit points.

Also, the issue was never all large bases, and it targets ships that were never part of the problem (Lamdba Shuttles, Firesprays).

Yes, it does. If I'd been in charge, it would have applied to all ships. But that would have been more complicated, since it means every ship in every game is affected, and it would have targeted even more ships that aren't part of the point-fortress metagame issue.

The issue wasn't large ships as a whole, it was point vaulting, and there are only a select few ships that can do so, both large and small.

Sure, but how do you get at that set with a clear, bright line? Have a fix that applies only to PS7 and higher Large ships with either boost or barrel roll and at least one crew slot filled with a defensive upgrade?

If you are running a list that consistently is not finishing games then there should be some kind of negative feedback for that. This seems good.

Yeah only Sensor Jammer Tempests plus Dark Curse. Now that's a blast to take down XD...

With AC actually a very decent squad though but even then tends to go to time!

Maybe MoV is flawed in itself?

It is, but...

Is there a more accurate representation of the game state at the end of the match?

...I haven't been able to come up with one.

What of small ships with regenerative abilities? Are they not considered point vaulting also?

They're much less common, they're typically not as good at running away from incoming fire, and they're also typically easier to beat if you focus fire due to having fewer hit points.

Also, the issue was never all large bases, and it targets ships that were never part of the problem (Lamdba Shuttles, Firesprays).

Yes, it does. If I'd been in charge, it would have applied to all ships. But that would have been more complicated, since it means every ship in every game is affected, and it would have targeted even more ships that aren't part of the point-fortress metagame issue.

The issue wasn't large ships as a whole, it was point vaulting, and there are only a select few ships that can do so, both large and small.

Sure, but how do you get at that set with a clear, bright line? Have a fix that applies only to PS7 and higher Large ships with either boost or barrel roll and at least one crew slot filled with a defensive upgrade?

And that's where we stand. I don't disagree with your points, but I'm just not sold on this balancing the game.

I'm excited to see the results of the rule change and what it will mean for the meta. We will find out soon who the next king of the hill will be and we will look to bring that down

Good players that I knew understood that bringing 4 or more small ships (and no point fortress) were much less likely to make the cut if they ended up with a record where the tiebreakers mattered. Essentially, we all felt those lists had to be "one win better" than two ship lists to consider bringing them.

Thank you. This is a brilliant and brief way to talk about a complicated idea.

It's a flawed argument actually. There is not enough data here to accurately declare why 4 ship lists seem to not do as well as 2 ship lists. Could it be that 2 ship lists are easier to fly and not as many pilot errors (poor dial choices, forgetting an action, etc.) occur? Rule of engineering: If two machines are capable of doing the same job, the one with less moving parts will be the superior of the two.

I just think the rule could've have been implemented better.

You're right it could've been better. But we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. FFG tends to take what is IMO the best approach to balance.

The give it a nudge and then see how it will play out in the real world. They will track Worlds, and the store championships next year and see how things go. At that point they will either decide that the changes as is were good enough and got the balance they sought. Or they'll see that it's not quite there yet and make another adjustment.

But that is again IMO better then too big of a nudge and having to over correct things.

Good players that I knew understood that bringing 4 or more small ships (and no point fortress) were much less likely to make the cut if they ended up with a record where the tiebreakers mattered. Essentially, we all felt those lists had to be "one win better" than two ship lists to consider bringing them.

Thank you. This is a brilliant and brief way to talk about a complicated idea.

It's a flawed argument actually. There is not enough data here to accurately declare why 4 ship lists seem to not do as well as 2 ship lists. Could it be that 2 ship lists are easier to fly and not as many pilot errors (poor dial choices, forgetting an action, etc.) occur? Rule of engineering: If two machines are capable of doing the same job, the one with less moving parts will be the superior of the two.

We have an observed phenomenon: small lists featuring Large ships consistently perform better than other lists. We also have a plausible hypothesis about the cause: as an artifact of the tournament rules, those lists tend to lose fewer points and consequently have stronger MoV. That hypothesis has some mathematical support, and it also doesn't have any obvious problems or introduce any questions we can't answer.

We can also rule out some alternative hypothesis. We can rule out "Large ships are just overpowered" as an explanation, since we have good mathematical evidence that's not true.

You're right that we can't completely rule out something like greater player fatigue with larger lists. But we can point out that two-ship lists have been possible since Wave 2, but didn't take off until Wave 4/5--right about the time the tiebreaker was changed from strength of schedule (which, let's not forget, was awful) to margin of victory.

So you're not really following Occam's Razor. You're actually proposing that we throw out a perfectly good hypothesis and substitute it with a less plausible one that introduces some awkward side questions.