I suppose you could use squad points and points destroyed and get a percentage and compare at the end, but I don't know if that just adds more math for no real benefit.

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.

Not entirely. You have made some valid points and have yielded to the limitations of those points. Other have not.

VDM is right, FFG has addressed a problem with an action that it can evaluate. It's a small step that is not overly dramatic.

TLT blah blah, MoV change blah blah, Need new rules blah blah blah. This forum gets worse by the day. Too many people not trying to solve the questions but rather complaining.

TLT blah blah, MoV change blah blah, Need new rules blah blah blah. This forum gets worse by the day. Too many people not trying to solve the questions but rather complaining.

You missed the 4 pages of pros, cons, and solutions then...

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.

Someone needs to explain that concept to car manufacturers.

TLT blah blah, MoV change blah blah, Need new rules blah blah blah. This forum gets worse by the day. Too many people not trying to solve the questions but rather complaining.

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.

Not only this, but the dominant force in the meta until Wave 4 was the swarm. After that, the phantom, one of the most complicated ships in terms of the sheer possibility of options, was one of the two top lists in the meta until its rules were changed. I think we have very good evidence, actually, that player fatigue is not a factor in which lists are top lists, though I wouldn't disagree it's a factor that makes/made them popular. If a list is good in the current tournament environment, people will play it and it will win.

TLT blah blah, MoV change blah blah, Need new rules blah blah blah. This forum gets worse by the day. Too many people not trying to solve the questions but rather complaining.

I can understand your frustration, but you are not making it better this way. Essentialy you just added to the whining. As did I by telling you this - what a hippocrit I am.

I like the ruling and will play my first tournament with it on the 3rd. As someone who prefers small ships this is great for me. I am a bit sad for Firesprays, but they already were in such a bad spot that it doesn't matter much. Imperial generics aren't hit as bad, though, and they actually might make some kind of comeback with their good stat-cost ratio and higher PS than TLT-spam. Large base also helps to get into range one.

Two players were running bro-bots and almost all of their wins were only partial wins because of the new MOV.....The final score was 57 to 49, even though he still had BOTH of his ships and killed 2 out of 3 of mine...

You did a darn fine job of explaining why the new MOV rules are much more fair...

They may still need some tweaking, but that's ok, considering FFG can update it easily.

If you compare the small ship vs large ship MOV rates to small ship vs small ship MOV rates, they look similar now, whereas before they did not.

While the new rules may not be perfect, the answer is not to do away with the rule. It just needs to be tweaked.

However, it's still pretty early. I'd give it at least several months before we start tearing down FFG's virtual door and demanding a tweak or takebacksy

I feel like there's a solution to this. Play one large ship and at least 2-3 small ships.

Done.

Muwhahahahahahahahaha!

Imagine starfighters actually being the centre of attention in a dogfighting game.

People that complain about big ships no longer ruling the roost will get very little sympathy.

This change should of come in much sooner.

Perhaps, and this might happen. Makes the game much more complicated though.

You keep using that word.........

I'm no expert on the official tournament circuit but my gaming group has held a couple of tournaments now and we now have a functioning X-Wing league. We chose to adapt the new MOV rules into our league.

The main issue I have with Big Ship lists is that they are designed for a technical win, its a very lazy format and not in the spirit of the game. If players are creating list to run out the clock and win on points, you know you have a problem and I have watched many store tournaments online and you can see the obvious, intentional stalling pretty consistently. Its very ugly.

The MOV rules simply force players to try to finish the game before the clock runs out by engaging in risk. The match the OP described, that's exactly what the result should be, that big ship should lose.

The scenario i see, that balance competitive play but not neccesarily the gameplay advantages of PWT:

Tie swarm player winning a game, as a tie swarm player he is absolutely convinced that for every win he will take he will loose a ship, they are so fragile, but its still a win.

Fortress player winning a game, as a fortress he is absolutely convinced that if he wins it will be with the fortress alive and escort have high% possibilities to end alive.

Results of the scenario the swarm MOV will always be worse than the fortress making competitive game unbalanced, with this rule you expect the same result from the same lists = balance

I feel like there's a solution to this. Play one large ship and at least 2-3 small ships.

Done.

So you're telling me the new rule will have to force me to play a certain archetype to make it competitive? That's the opposite of what balancing a format should do...

Muwhahahahahahahahaha!

Imagine starfighters actually being the centre of attention in a dogfighting game.

People that complain about big ships no longer ruling the roost will get very little sympathy.

This change should of come in much sooner.

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

Your opinion is obviously biased towards small base ships, which doesn't tell me how you think this balances the game.

I'm no expert on the official tournament circuit but my gaming group has held a couple of tournaments now and we now have a functioning X-Wing league. We chose to adapt the new MOV rules into our league.

The main issue I have with Big Ship lists is that they are designed for a technical win, its a very lazy format and not in the spirit of the game. If players are creating list to run out the clock and win on points, you know you have a problem and I have watched many store tournaments online and you can see the obvious, intentional stalling pretty consistently. Its very ugly.

The MOV rules simply force players to try to finish the game before the clock runs out by engaging in risk. The match the OP described, that's exactly what the result should be, that big ship should lose.

This is what I agree with, and what I thought was what the rule was intended on doing. When the first FAQ came out and it was assumed the scoring came in when games went to time, I was all for it. When it came out this ruling was for all results, whether they went to time or not, is when I had an issue with it.

Like I've said, the gripe I have with the ruling is that it was intended for point vaulting, running matches to time, running away, etc. The ruling is having adverse affects (again, on matches that DO NOT go to time) on lists/matches that do not promote this type of game play. It is basically an overall large base nerf. Thank god because the terror of the Outer Rim Smuggler was upon us! Sorry for the sarcasm

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

This is what I agree with, and what I thought was what the rule was intended on doing. When the first FAQ came out and it was assumed the scoring came in when games went to time, I was all for it. When it came out this ruling was for all results, whether they went to time or not, is when I had an issue with it.

Like I've said, the gripe I have with the ruling is that it was intended for point vaulting, running matches to time, running away, etc.

Building a point fortress into your list isn't dependent on time, though. It's an effective technique for inflating your MoV in any match that's scored, regardless of whether there's a time limit.

I feel like there's a solution to this. Play one large ship and at least 2-3 small ships.

Done.

So you're telling me the new rule will have to force me to play a certain archetype to make it competitive? That's the opposite of what balancing a format should do...

Muwhahahahahahahahaha!

Imagine starfighters actually being the centre of attention in a dogfighting game.

People that complain about big ships no longer ruling the roost will get very little sympathy.

This change should of come in much sooner.

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

Your opinion is obviously biased towards small base ships, which doesn't tell me how you think this balances the game.

I'm no expert on the official tournament circuit but my gaming group has held a couple of tournaments now and we now have a functioning X-Wing league. We chose to adapt the new MOV rules into our league.

The main issue I have with Big Ship lists is that they are designed for a technical win, its a very lazy format and not in the spirit of the game. If players are creating list to run out the clock and win on points, you know you have a problem and I have watched many store tournaments online and you can see the obvious, intentional stalling pretty consistently. Its very ugly.

The MOV rules simply force players to try to finish the game before the clock runs out by engaging in risk. The match the OP described, that's exactly what the result should be, that big ship should lose.

This is what I agree with, and what I thought was what the rule was intended on doing. When the first FAQ came out and it was assumed the scoring came in when games went to time, I was all for it. When it came out this ruling was for all results, whether they went to time or not, is when I had an issue with it.

Like I've said, the gripe I have with the ruling is that it was intended for point vaulting, running matches to time, running away, etc. The ruling is having adverse affects (again, on matches that DO NOT go to time) on lists/matches that do not promote this type of game play. It is basically an overall large base nerf. Thank god because the terror of the Outer Rim Smuggler was upon us! Sorry for the sarcasm

It has to apply to end of match for games that end before time limit as well, because let's take for example 2 brobots vs 4 25-pt ships. Let's say at the end of the match, the brobots win and destroy all 4 25-pt ships. But the small ship player managed to do half damage to both of the brobots. According to the old rules, it would be a 200-0 MoV victory for the Brobots. Does that really reflect what the 4-ship player did in the game? Did he really achieve absolutely nothing? He might as well have flown all his ships off the table on the first turn because the points would be equivalent. Under the new rules it would be a 150-50 MoV - much more indicative of what happened in the match. If this was the small ship player's only loss on the day, that 50 MoV points would definitely make a big difference towards making the cut.

I'm confused when the format is already 100 pts what negative reason is there for not just making the game full partial scoring. In other words why is the partial points limited to large ships?

It's not complicated when your talking about a 100pt tournament format. If a ship is dead you get full pts, if a ship has 2 of 5 hull/shield left you take 2/5 of its total point cost. When everyone has calculators on their cell phones it's not complicated and regardless you need to turn in the results after each match. Just seems to me more balanced then the old scoring which was heavily biased for large ships or the new system which is slightly biased against large ships.

Like I've said, the gripe I have with the ruling is that it was intended for point vaulting, running matches to time, running away, etc. The ruling is having adverse affects (again, on matches that DO NOT go to time) on lists/matches that do not promote this type of game play.

How? In games that complete it only makes MoV more accurately reflect the damage each force took.

I'm confused when the format is already 100 pts what negative reason is there for not just making the game full partial scoring. In other words why is the partial points limited to large ships?

Some ships have so little point cost that it's not really worth it, and it'd create some strange distortions with mass health regeneration from R2-D2/R5-P9 which would further distort timed from untimed. Wouldn't surprise me if they extended it further if people made small ship forts after this which had a distorting effect, but given how much easier small ships are to focus down I'm not worried.

A Point Fort has to fight on equal terms with a non-point fort while locking its score and MoV up in a high cost ship. While you can stack small ships up to crazy high point cost, it usually weakens your squad's offensive power to the point where an enemy list simply tables you. I've yet to see a small ship point fort build that could compete with Falcons or Decimators for efficacy.

I'm confused when the format is already 100 pts what negative reason is there for not just making the game full partial scoring. In other words why is the partial points limited to large ships?

It's not complicated when your talking about a 100pt tournament format. If a ship is dead you get full pts, if a ship has 2 of 5 hull/shield left you take 2/5 of its total point cost. When everyone has calculators on their cell phones it's not complicated and regardless you need to turn in the results after each match. Just seems to me more balanced then the old scoring which was heavily biased for large ships or the new system which is slightly biased against large ships.

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

X-Wing

Take control of powerful Rebel X-wings and nimble Imperial TIE fighters!

So you're saying we should only run X-Wings and TIE Fighters?

Don't use a hyperbole to prove your point. Didn't you learn from my previous posts? Lol

I feel like there's a solution to this. Play one large ship and at least 2-3 small ships.

Done.

So you're telling me the new rule will have to force me to play a certain archetype to make it competitive? That's the opposite of what balancing a format should do...

Muwhahahahahahahahaha!

Imagine starfighters actually being the centre of attention in a dogfighting game.

People that complain about big ships no longer ruling the roost will get very little sympathy.

This change should of come in much sooner.

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

Your opinion is obviously biased towards small base ships, which doesn't tell me how you think this balances the game.

I'm no expert on the official tournament circuit but my gaming group has held a couple of tournaments now and we now have a functioning X-Wing league. We chose to adapt the new MOV rules into our league.

The main issue I have with Big Ship lists is that they are designed for a technical win, its a very lazy format and not in the spirit of the game. If players are creating list to run out the clock and win on points, you know you have a problem and I have watched many store tournaments online and you can see the obvious, intentional stalling pretty consistently. Its very ugly.

The MOV rules simply force players to try to finish the game before the clock runs out by engaging in risk. The match the OP described, that's exactly what the result should be, that big ship should lose.

This is what I agree with, and what I thought was what the rule was intended on doing. When the first FAQ came out and it was assumed the scoring came in when games went to time, I was all for it. When it came out this ruling was for all results, whether they went to time or not, is when I had an issue with it.

Like I've said, the gripe I have with the ruling is that it was intended for point vaulting, running matches to time, running away, etc. The ruling is having adverse affects (again, on matches that DO NOT go to time) on lists/matches that do not promote this type of game play. It is basically an overall large base nerf. Thank god because the terror of the Outer Rim Smuggler was upon us! Sorry for the sarcasm

It has to apply to end of match for games that end before time limit as well, because let's take for example 2 brobots vs 4 25-pt ships. Let's say at the end of the match, the brobots win and destroy all 4 25-pt ships. But the small ship player managed to do half damage to both of the brobots. According to the old rules, it would be a 200-0 MoV victory for the Brobots. Does that really reflect what the 4-ship player did in the game? Did he really achieve absolutely nothing? He might as well have flown all his ships off the table on the first turn because the points would be equivalent. Under the new rules it would be a 150-50 MoV - much more indicative of what happened in the match. If this was the small ship player's only loss on the day, that 50 MoV points would definitely make a big difference towards making the cut.

I see your point, and I know every scenario will play out different. What I can't understand is why the 4 ship player didn't put those 8 hit points on one ship, effectively killing it, removing half the lists fire power, then starting to work on the other. Now he has a chance of winning instead of taking a loss. Getting partial scoring because you lost fair and square doesn't make sense to me, but if most of you agree this is what is right then so be it. Obviously we will see how this affects the meta once we have more results.

Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played? Why would they include large hulls if this was a meant to be a small ship game? What isn't thematic about flying a couple of Bounty Hunters Boba Fett/IG-B, against Han and Luke?

X-Wing

Take control of powerful Rebel X-wings and nimble Imperial TIE fighters!

So you're saying we should only run X-Wings and TIE Fighters?

Don't use a hyperbole to prove your point. Didn't you learn from my previous posts? Lol

I'm quoting the banner for this forum, which is run by FFG, you asked "Who's to say the game should be played how YOU interpret it should be played?" the answer is FFG think it's a game about starfighters.

Starwars has always been about starfighter combat in space and i can only think of one example where you fly a cargo ship that's x-wing alliance, you could argue kortor but that's on the rail shooting sections and not a true flight sim.

x-wing

Tie fighter

X-wing Vs Tie fighter

Rogue squadron games

Rebel assault games

Starwars galaxies

All these games were inspiration for the game we play and all are focused on the snub fighters.

Big ships have their place but in a game called x-wing they should not be the centre of attention.

Starwars has always been about starfighter combat in space and i can only think of one example where you fly a cargo ship that's x-wing alliance...

So you're going to ignore the first 3 movies then?