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.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

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.

I've said this in every thread on this topic and either no one notices or everyone disagrees but I think this is an indirect response to the craziness that is large ship boost. Why not apply to small ships? They can't abuse the boost to the extent that large ships can. Miranda and SLAM might be an edge case but she can't SLAM and regen and the K-wing is overall not the monster that the Falcon can be anyway.

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.

(not trying to poke fun at grammar or spelling but your post brought this to mind and I had to make and share this image...)

I've said this in every thread on this topic and either no one notices or everyone disagrees but I think this is an indirect response to the craziness that is large ship boost. Why not apply to small ships? They can't abuse the boost to the extent that large ships can. Miranda and SLAM might be an edge case but she can't SLAM and regen and the K-wing is overall not the monster that the Falcon can be anyway.

Thank goodness I didn't buy a Decimator or the Hound's Tooth. Now, I don't think I ever will.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

And the person flying the brobots get points for a full win, meaning they will be better off than the person who's game went to time.

Yes their MoV may be lower than someone who flew the same list and suffered less damage. But their MoV should be lower, because the other person flew their list better.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

I think they should still be accounted for when the game ends completely. Like i said earlier, if you have 2 brobots on 2 hull each by the end of the match when you table your opponent, 200-0 MoV doesn't tell the tale of the match.

If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

Sure. But it's also important that the score reflects how close the Brobots' opponent got, irrespective of how the game ended.

When we score tournaments, we determine how close the match was based on how many points both players killed. Suppose there are two players with identical Brobot lists, and they fight identical BBBBZ lists in Round 4 of a tournament. Brobots A were left with 2 hull each, and Brobots B had taken only 2 damage each (left with 4 hull and 2 shields).

There's a big difference between those two games: one was pretty close, and the other one was a complete blowout. And in order for the tournament structure we use to work, we need the ability to tell the difference between the close game and the blowout. If they both score as 100-0, two things happen:

(1) Brobots B doesn't get the appropriate credit, compared to Brobots A. If they're both at the cut, A and B look the same and are treated the same despite the differences in their last game.

(2) The losing player against Brobots A doesn't get credit for the work he or she did, compared to the losing player against Brobots B. Again, the tournament cut will treat them the same way, regardless of the blowout by Brobots B.

We could use a different tournament structure that avoids the need for tiebreakers entirely (Round robin pods followed by a cut to double elimination, for instance). But that's not the system we have; in order for the MoV system to work well, it needs better resolution than simply knowing whether a ship was destroyed.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

I think they should still be accounted for when the game ends completely. Like i said earlier, if you have 2 brobots on 2 hull each by the end of the match when you table your opponent, 200-0 MoV doesn't tell the tale of the match.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions. WHY?!? Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

If the point of partial scoring is to more accurately portray a game that was not stopped on time, I turn to the Core Rule book's definition of winning: "When one player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, the game ends and the player with at least one remaining ship wins!" (Learn to Play, 7) And again: "Over several game rounds, these ships deftly maneuver and barrage each other with lasers and ordnance until all of one player’s ships are destroyed." (Learn, 2) Time is only a part of a tournament because a store (and the players) do not want to be playing for 3 straight days. MOV was created to reflect the probable outcome of a completed game, without time restrictions, in a limited time frame.

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?

Was there a combat scene in space that didn't feature snubfighters?

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

I think they should still be accounted for when the game ends completely. Like i said earlier, if you have 2 brobots on 2 hull each by the end of the match when you table your opponent, 200-0 MoV doesn't tell the tale of the match.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions. WHY?!? Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

If the point of partial scoring is to more accurately portray a game that was not stopped on time, I turn to the Core Rule book's definition of winning: "When one player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, the game ends and the player with at least one remaining ship wins!" (Learn to Play, 7) And again: "Over several game rounds, these ships deftly maneuver and barrage each other with lasers and ordnance until all of one player’s ships are destroyed." (Learn, 2) Time is only a part of a tournament because a store (and the players) do not want to be playing for 3 straight days. MOV was created to reflect the probable outcome of a completed game, without time restrictions, in a limited time frame.

The reason why, is because in the culture of the big ship point fortress and 200-0 MoV wins, small ship base pilots are handicapped when entering tie breaking territory when looking for making the cut at a premier tournament. A list that has large survivable ships that is more likely to win 200-0 simply because of the survivabiliity of the ships is going to be advantaged there.

Let's say you enter a 120-person, 6 match swiss tournament with a top 8 cut and finish with a 5-1 record, 200 MoV for the wins and 0 MoV for your loss (because when big ship lists lose, they tend to lose HARD). your total for the day is 1000 MoV points, even if your ships are below half health at the end of match, entering the cut.

Your buddy enters the same tournament and gets the same record, 5-1. The simple fact that he's running a small ship list means he's going to have a weaker MoV than you because at least one ship is going to be destroyed throughout the course of the match. Let's say he gets 150 or 175 MoV for each win. let's say his wins are 200 (got lucky), 175, 175, 150, and 150. For the sake of argument, let's say his loss is equivalent to yours, 0. In this example, his total MoV is 850. Even if he gets 50 points in his loss, his MoV is still less than yours (900 vs your 1000 for not destroying anything in your loss).

So even though he achieved the same record of 5-1, the simple nature of his list means that he's not as likely to make the top cut. This is why it was mentioned earlier that if you are running a small ship list, you need to be "one win better" than any large base ship list to be in contention for the cut.

This is why I support half scores for large base ships ALL matches. Without it, the metagame will still strongly favor large ship bases as point fortresses.

It is called margin of victory for a reason.

(1) Brobots B doesn't get the appropriate credit, compared to Brobots A. If they're both at the cut, A and B look the same and are treated the same despite the differences in their last game.

(2) The losing player against Brobots A doesn't get credit for the work he or she did, compared to the losing player against Brobots B. Again, the tournament cut will treat them the same way, regardless of the blowout by Brobots B.

This is exactly why, Stone37, a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match." Flying 8 TIEs against Fat Dash and Corran, while my buddy is flying 8 TIEs against another Fat Dash and Corran, if both Corrans die, both me and my friend are tabled, but my opponent's Dash has 1 HP left, and my buddy's opponent's Dash is untouched, I did a much better job of attacking my opponent than my friend did, and that should be represented in the TIEBREAKER. What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that this doesn't even effect you unless you are on tiebreakers. Win all your games, it doesn't matter at all.

Let's say you enter a 120-person, 6 match swiss tournament with a top 8 cut and finish with a 5-1 record, 200 MoV for the wins and 0 MoV for your loss (because when big ship lists lose, they tend to lose HARD). your total for the day is 1000 MoV points, even if your ships are below half health at the end of match, entering the cut.

Your buddy enters the same tournament and gets the same record, 5-1. The simple fact that he's running a small ship list means he's going to have a weaker MoV than you because at least one ship is going to be destroyed throughout the course of the match. Let's say he gets 150 or 175 MoV for each win. let's say his wins are 200 (got lucky), 175, 175, 150, and 150. For the sake of argument, let's say his loss is equivalent to yours, 0. In this example, his total MoV is 850.

So even though he achieved the same record of 5-1, the simple nature of his list means that he's not as likely to make the top cut. This is why it was mentioned earlier that if you are running a small ship list, you need to be "one win better" than any large base ship list to be in contention for the cut.

I get the impression that those who are complaining most about this change are those that took Fat Turret + Ace or Brobots to major tournaments and won primarily off the strength of their list, running the weakened ship away to stall to time for wins. The above is another great example of why this is a positive change, freeing small-ship lists to make a return to the meta.

I support the full use of this system to start edging out Pic & Gorc lists, mostly because when 5-7 of the top 8 of most tournaments, major and minor, are Falcon/Outrider + Corran/Jake or Decimator + Soontir/Whisper, showing that a whopping 7 of the, what, 25? making tournament cuts, you are not playing a very diverse game. The idea that I can take something like Biggs Walks the Dogs or a TIE swarm to a major tournament and not feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle against the meta net-list craziness is extremely refreshing. This ruling, combined with wave 7, has seen bombers, Y's, and even HWKs return to the spotlight.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

I think they should still be accounted for when the game ends completely. Like i said earlier, if you have 2 brobots on 2 hull each by the end of the match when you table your opponent, 200-0 MoV doesn't tell the tale of the match.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions. WHY?!? Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

If the point of partial scoring is to more accurately portray a game that was not stopped on time, I turn to the Core Rule book's definition of winning: "When one player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, the game ends and the player with at least one remaining ship wins!" (Learn to Play, 7) And again: "Over several game rounds, these ships deftly maneuver and barrage each other with lasers and ordnance until all of one player’s ships are destroyed." (Learn, 2) Time is only a part of a tournament because a store (and the players) do not want to be playing for 3 straight days. MOV was created to reflect the probable outcome of a completed game, without time restrictions, in a limited time frame.

The reason why, is because in the culture of the big ship point fortress and 200-0 MoV wins, small ship base pilots are handicapped when entering tie breaking territory when looking for making the cut at a premier tournament. A list that has large survivable ships that is more likely to win 200-0 simply because of the survivabiliity of the ships is going to be advantaged there.

Let's say you enter a 120-person, 6 match swiss tournament with a top 8 cut and finish with a 5-1 record, 200 MoV for the wins and 0 MoV for your loss (because when big ship lists lose, they tend to lose HARD). your total for the day is 1000 MoV points, even if your ships are below half health at the end of match, entering the cut.

Your buddy enters the same tournament and gets the same record, 5-1. The simple fact that he's running a small ship list means he's going to have a weaker MoV than you because at least one ship is going to be destroyed throughout the course of the match. Let's say he gets 150 or 175 MoV for each win. let's say his wins are 200 (got lucky), 175, 175, 150, and 150. For the sake of argument, let's say his loss is equivalent to yours, 0. In this example, his total MoV is 850. Even if he gets 50 points in his loss, his MoV is still less than yours (900 vs your 1000 for not destroying anything in your loss).

So even though he achieved the same record of 5-1, the simple nature of his list means that he's not as likely to make the top cut. This is why it was mentioned earlier that if you are running a small ship list, you need to be "one win better" than any large base ship list to be in contention for the cut.

This is why I support half scores for large base ships ALL matches. Without it, the metagame will still strongly favor large ship bases as point fortresses.

You've assumed far too much in this explanation for this to be a logical argument. Many players have flown 2 to 4 small base ships and over the course of a tournament have not lost a single ship. The current MOV rules should have nothing to do with "punishing" large base ships if they are to be fair rules based in logic and mathematical evidence.

It is called margin of victory for a reason.

Is not 5 ships destroyed compared to 1 lost a "margin of victory?

I get it gang, I know why most of you like the new MOV. But they are not sound logical reasons for such a system. VS, VanorDM, VaynMaanen, (a few others) and I are not debating feeling. We are critically looking at the short-comings of the old MOV and the new MOV.

Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

In a game that completes, the winning player scores a full, 5 Tournament Point Win, regardless of what happens. Even if that rule didn't exist, partial scoring would only affect <24 point Lambda shuttles being the sole survivor and making the final kill.

The new ruling only affects their Margin of Victory (MoV). As a TO you know that this comes into play when two players are tied on tournament points when you make the cut.

Why does the new ruling affect MoV in all games? Because it's simply unfair that a 2 ship Brobot list on their last couple of hit points scores a 200 MoV victory, yet for a TIE swarm to do the same it's got to keep every last TIE alive, an overwhelmingly more difficult task. It artificially advantages the Brobots beyond their mechanical ability (no pun intended). Partial MoV narrows that gap.

Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

In a game that completes, the winning player scores a full, 5 Tournament Point Win, regardless of what happens. Even if that rule didn't exist, partial scoring would only affect <24 point Lambda shuttles being the sole survivor and making the final kill.

The new ruling only affects their Margin of Victory (MoV). As a TO you know that this comes into play when two players are tied on tournament points when you make the cut.

Why does the new ruling affect MoV in all games? Because it's simply unfair that a 2 ship Brobot list on their last couple of hit points scores a 200 MoV victory, yet for a TIE swarm to do the same it's got to keep every last TIE alive, an overwhelmingly more difficult task. It artificially advantages the Brobots beyond their mechanical ability (no pun intended). Partial MoV narrows that gap.

I agree THIS IS what the MOV provides. But is it fair to all ships, lists, and players? Does it create, as best as it can, a depiction of how every game would end if there was not a time limit? You have already pointed out a flaw in this new scoring system with the Shuttle. I'm not saying throw the whole system away because of this, but it would also be unjust to NOT recognize the inherent flaw. How can the scoring system be further tweeked to correct this wrong? Time and further critical thought will provide the answers.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions.

Yes he did, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact you even posted why it needs it... "Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."?"

The answer to that should honestly be self evident.

Was there a combat scene in space that didn't feature snubfighters?

Which means what exactly? Should we change the rules so you can't fly a YT, VT, or other large ship unless you have 2 small ships in your list?

You tried to claim that Star Wars seldom if ever had a cargo ship involved in combat... But for that statement to be true you pretty much have to ignore all the movies, not to mention all the other EU sources out there. The simple fact is that large ships with turrets is very much a staple of Star Wars.

Flying against a well flown brobots list with 4 ships, it's very likely that you can really only shoot at whichever one presents the opportunity to be shot at. This scenario is much more likely to occur due to the squirrelly nature of the brobots, and although the 4-ship player would much rather focus all fire on one ship, the opportunity to do so is unlikely to present itself.

So, the "well flown" borbot list player is punished for flying his ships well and avoiding destruction (but also achieving full success by destroying all his opponent's ships)? The ships are balanced. It is not the ships themselves that keep them from being focus fired on round after round, but the player who is flying them.

I now, after reflection of the possible outcome of the new MOV, fully endorse partial scoring on large ships when games end by time. The hope is that the partial scoring will reflect the chance the loosing player had of destroying that ship had the game been played to completion. There is no need to account for the chance of said destruction when the game ends naturally. If 2 alive brobots destroyed all 100 points of its opposition, the game has run its course.

I think they should still be accounted for when the game ends completely. Like i said earlier, if you have 2 brobots on 2 hull each by the end of the match when you table your opponent, 200-0 MoV doesn't tell the tale of the match.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions. WHY?!? Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."? The tale has been told. One opponent lost - as in all their ships have been destroyed. The other enjoyed complete victory - all his ships survived.

If the point of partial scoring is to more accurately portray a game that was not stopped on time, I turn to the Core Rule book's definition of winning: "When one player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, the game ends and the player with at least one remaining ship wins!" (Learn to Play, 7) And again: "Over several game rounds, these ships deftly maneuver and barrage each other with lasers and ordnance until all of one player’s ships are destroyed." (Learn, 2) Time is only a part of a tournament because a store (and the players) do not want to be playing for 3 straight days. MOV was created to reflect the probable outcome of a completed game, without time restrictions, in a limited time frame.

The reason why, is because in the culture of the big ship point fortress and 200-0 MoV wins, small ship base pilots are handicapped when entering tie breaking territory when looking for making the cut at a premier tournament. A list that has large survivable ships that is more likely to win 200-0 simply because of the survivabiliity of the ships is going to be advantaged there.

Let's say you enter a 120-person, 6 match swiss tournament with a top 8 cut and finish with a 5-1 record, 200 MoV for the wins and 0 MoV for your loss (because when big ship lists lose, they tend to lose HARD). your total for the day is 1000 MoV points, even if your ships are below half health at the end of match, entering the cut.

Your buddy enters the same tournament and gets the same record, 5-1. The simple fact that he's running a small ship list means he's going to have a weaker MoV than you because at least one ship is going to be destroyed throughout the course of the match. Let's say he gets 150 or 175 MoV for each win. let's say his wins are 200 (got lucky), 175, 175, 150, and 150. For the sake of argument, let's say his loss is equivalent to yours, 0. In this example, his total MoV is 850. Even if he gets 50 points in his loss, his MoV is still less than yours (900 vs your 1000 for not destroying anything in your loss).

So even though he achieved the same record of 5-1, the simple nature of his list means that he's not as likely to make the top cut. This is why it was mentioned earlier that if you are running a small ship list, you need to be "one win better" than any large base ship list to be in contention for the cut.

This is why I support half scores for large base ships ALL matches. Without it, the metagame will still strongly favor large ship bases as point fortresses.

You've assumed far too much in this explanation for this to be a logical argument. Many players have flown 2 to 4 small base ships and over the course of a tournament have not lost a single ship. The current MOV rules should have nothing to do with "punishing" large base ships if they are to be fair rules based in logic and mathematical evidence.

1. both full health.

2. both half health.

3. both half health.

4. both barely alive.

5. one half health, other full health.

Under the old convention, you would still come away with 200-0 wins for all 5 of these matches, for a total of 1000.

Under the new convention, you would come away with 200, 150, 150, 150, and 175, for a total of 825.

Under the old convention, it would still have been much more difficult for him to catch you in MoV entering the cut simply because of the nature of your list. In the new rules, it's easier for him to catch you.

Would it make it easier to support if, instead of 2 Brobots, it's Chewie and Leebo? I had a friend who entered a regional and lost his first match using Chewie and Leebo. He fought his way back all the way up into top 8 at match 6 because he would win 200-0 on all his other matches simply because of how hard it is to kill both Chewie and Leebo.

again, i'll cite AlexW:

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.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions.

Yes he did, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact you even posted why it needs it... "Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."?"The answer to that should honestly be self evident.

Was there a combat scene in space that didn't feature snubfighters?

Which means what exactly? Should we change the rules so you can't fly a YT, VT, or other large ship unless you have 2 small ships in your list?You tried to claim that Star Wars seldom if ever had a cargo ship involved in combat... But for that statement to be true you pretty much have to ignore all the movies, not to mention all the other EU sources out there. The simple fact is that large ships with turrets is very much a staple of Star Wars.

So if we tally all the movies books and games what percentage of battles represented include a big ship?

I'd be willing to bet it's well under 10% probably under 5%, remember I said big ships have their place but in this franchise snubfighters have always been the bigger focus.

The games not called millennium falcon after all.

But is it fair to all ships, lists, and players?

If you're whole argument is that it would be better if all ships were scored based on the half damage=half points. I think myself and most others would agree. That would be a better system.

If your argument is that it should only apply if the game goes to time, then no I don't agree. Because there is a very real difference between destroying all of someone's ships with no losses and doing so with your ships only having a single hull left. Just because you managed to keep your ship alive doesn't IMO mean you deserve a 200-0 MoV.

For the most part it is only the large tanky type ships that are capable of being point fortresses, so that's the ships that this change is aimed at.

Does that mean there will be a few high price small ships that can do the same thing? Yes but not as effectively. Does that mean some large ships will be impacted more harshly than others? Perhaps.

Does either of those things mean this shouldn't be done? No, because again perfect should not be the enemy of good, and even though this change may not be ideal, it's a step in the right direction.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions.

Yes he did, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact you even posted why it needs it... "Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."?"

The answer to that should honestly be self evident.

You're right, he did state something... but they were hypothetical situations. Words are being thrown around without being defined. The word "fair" is going to have very different meanings to each member of this debate. What is the intended out come of the new MOV? WHY is it needed? So no, it is not self evident. While I have never TOed an event over 40 players, I've never encountered a need for such odd math. (As numbers grow, the chance for ties increase. I understand this statistic.) My query is this: has the new MOV affected outcomes that would not have needed this system to break ties? If the answer is yes, and it would be hard to argue otherwise, then this will need to be addressed. The outcome of any tie breaking system should be to not change, through means of mathematical formulas, who has won (and to what degree) but to more clearly illustrate this.

So here I need to define "fair" - which I hope I just did above. My stance is not on either of the two stances you proposed. I want to find a system that rewards the player that plays as if there was no time. But, because there is a time limit, the MOV (as accurately as possible) should mathematically simulate such a game in a limited time format.

You are also correct to say that imperfections should not stop trails to discover ways to implement positive change. We will gain valuable data from a few months of this system and discover what still needs to be worked on. Little changes are always the best.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions.

Yes he did, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact you even posted why it needs it... "Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."?"The answer to that should honestly be self evident.

Was there a combat scene in space that didn't feature snubfighters?

Which means what exactly? Should we change the rules so you can't fly a YT, VT, or other large ship unless you have 2 small ships in your list?You tried to claim that Star Wars seldom if ever had a cargo ship involved in combat... But for that statement to be true you pretty much have to ignore all the movies, not to mention all the other EU sources out there. The simple fact is that large ships with turrets is very much a staple of Star Wars.

So if we tally all the movies books and games what percentage of battles represented include a big ship?

I'd be willing to bet it's well under 10% probably under 5%, remember I said big ships have their place but in this franchise snubfighters have always been the bigger focus.

The games not called millennium falcon after all.

So 5%-10% of lists in tourneys should have large base hulls?

What point are you teeing to make exactly?

I'd be willing to bet it's well under 10% probably under 5%

Your numbers mean nothing. But consider that the only Rebel ship that got into any sort of fighter in ESB was the Falcon. We didn't see a single X-Wing fire a single shot.

But even if 75% of the ships we see in combat are snubnose fighters. What exactly do you think they should do? Make ships like the YT subpar so people don't play them? Because that would go over really well... No chance of someone getting upset that the $30 ship they bought sucks.

Or perhaps we should put a rule in place that you can't spend more than 50% of your points on Large ships?

Because without a mechanical change to the game, how much we see large ships in combat in Legends or the Movies means pretty much jack at this point.

You've stated nothing here to back your opinions.

Yes he did, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact you even posted why it needs it... "Why does a game that ends naturally need some odd modification to "tell the tale of the match."?"

The answer to that should honestly be self evident.

You're right, he did state something... but they were hypothetical situations. Words are being thrown around without being defined. The word "fair" is going to have very different meanings to each member of this debate. What is the intended out come of the new MOV? WHY is it needed? So no, it is not self evident. While I have never TOed an event over 40 players, I've never encountered a need for such odd math. (As numbers grow, the chance for ties increase. I understand this statistic.) My query is this: has the new MOV affected outcomes that would not have needed this system to break ties? If the answer is yes, and it would be hard to argue otherwise, then this will need to be addressed. The outcome of any tie breaking system should be to not change, through means of mathematical formulas, who has won (and to what degree) but to more clearly illustrate this.

The answer is, quite simply, yes. The Regional Tournament in Plano had 116 players in attendance. In 6 rounds of Swiss tournament, there would have been more than 8 players with a record good enough to make the cut, but 17 of them would end up not making the cut. It would have gone to tie breakers to determine the cut for all the 4-2 players.

The TO saw this coming and instead decided to hold 7 rounds of Swiss. But if they had adhered to the standard suggested tournament schedule, the tie breakers would have been brutal for the top 8 cut.

My query is this: has the new MOV affected outcomes that would not have needed this system to break ties?

I have seen games that have gone to time, and the winner was different depending on partial points vs full points. Clearly if a game doesn't go to time, there's no way for the outcome to change based on partial scoring. Because the winner will still get 5 points for a full win, regardless of MoV.

who has won (and to what degree) but to more clearly illustrate this.

And partial points more clearly illustrates the final outcome of the game.