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.

See now your just strawman building I've said zero,zip nada about limiting anything, all I've said is I'm happy about the change and look forward to less games dominated by points fortresses, and that people moaning will get no sympathy.

The game should feature starfighters and since wave five it hasn't it's featured fat Hans, super dash and brobots, this change will hopefully balance things out.

A dogfighting game should actually feature dog fights.

Putting all your eggs in one ship is no longer a way to game the system, that's a good thing.

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.

And as I've stated, I think the new MOV mostly does a good job of doing this. There are outlining occurrences. The system is also young and we need more time with it to fully understand the impact it will have on the game. What should we be looking for now in the system? What are our concerns?

Maybe the system is perfect, and I need the forum's help to get me to realize how perfect it is. If this is true, I wish to be cured of my ignorance. If it is not, I merely seek to find the next step toward perfection.

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.

And as I've stated, I think the new MOV mostly does a good job of doing this. There are outlining occurrences. The system is also young and we need more time with it to fully understand the impact it will have on the game. What should we be looking for now in the system? What are our concerns?

Maybe the system is perfect, and I need the forum's help to get me to realize how perfect it is. If this is true, I wish to be cured of my ignorance. If it is not, I merely seek to find the next step toward perfection.

I don't think anyone is saying that the system is perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. In large premiere level tournaments, the MoV tiebreakers can make a very big difference. As I said earlier, a regional tournament with 116 players would have had 17 players with records "good enough" to make the cut, who didn't make the cut because of tie breakers if not for the TO adding another round to the tournament. Other large events like that may not be able to add a round - so the situation applies.

If it is not, I merely seek to find the next step toward perfection.

I don't think it's perfect.

I think perfect would be full partial points for all ships. So you take a ship's total "HP's" and divide the points by that. Then at the end of the game (either full or partial) based on the damage done vs points spent.

So you strip my 30 point Jake of 2 shields and land one damage card, you get 22 or 23 points to MoV.

But there is a question of if doing that has a poor 'ROI' as it were. Does the added math take enough time and open enough possible mistakes, that full partial is actually worse than half.

Full or partial will have the same impact on ships like the Firespray. So if the only option is a system that does not have any sort of disparate impact then as I see it we can do nothing.

But the goal I believe is to make point fortresses less effective, and IME having run a league and tracking both full partial, half partial, as well as normal MoV. I found half partial worked well enough that full partial didn't add anything. But yet was better than the normal MoV system.

If it is not, I merely seek to find the next step toward perfection.

I don't think it's perfect.

I think perfect would be full partial points for all ships. So you take a ship's total "HP's" and divide the points by that. Then at the end of the game (either full or partial) based on the damage done vs points spent.

So you strip my 30 point Jake of 2 shields and land one damage card, you get 22 or 23 points to MoV.

But there is a question of if doing that has a poor 'ROI' as it were. Does the added math take enough time and open enough possible mistakes, that full partial is actually worse than half.

Full or partial will have the same impact on ships like the Firespray. So if the only option is a system that does not have any sort of disparate impact then as I see it we can do nothing.

But the goal I believe is to make point fortresses less effective, and IME having run a league and tracking both full partial, half partial, as well as normal MoV. I found half partial worked well enough that full partial didn't add anything. But yet was better than the normal MoV system.

I agree with VS that there is mathematical evidence that suggests an advantage (wither unfair or not is still up for debate) to "point fortressing" in timed events. I also agree that the new system is designed to address this mathematical skew in the data.

Now we wait and see the results. Will this cause the meta to shift to "new point fortressing" lists based on small ships? (such as Corran Horn) If so, then the MOV has not accomplished its task, merely moved the goal posts. Or, we might notice a steep drop in large based ships. If so, are large based ships now at a mathematical disadvantage?

I hope the answer is not partial scoring for all ships. Sounds like a total nightmare to keep track of with FAR too many chances for human error.

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.

^{Brief aside, that flaw doesn't actually exist with the shuttle. I thought it did a few days back, but the tournament rules say if you table the opponent it's a full win: a 21 point shuttle making the kill shot won't give you a modified.}

X-Wing was never built to be a tournament game. It's not a timed game by nature: the point difference between units makes no difference because the winner is the last pilot flying. Victory is binary: you win or you lose. There's no score involved.

Tournaments can't have completely untimed games, however: it's just not practical. In Armada and Imperial Assault, the tournament format has a built in Round Limit (10 in IA Skirmish, 6 in Armada) and was designed around this with objectives from the start. IA does have a point fort in the form of Darth Vader, but that's part of the design and balanced into the game: they even had an article on it. In X-Wing, however, the Falcon and its ilk are designed around the untimed game: they can fight on equal terms with other lists on top of their Point Fort advantage.

Without untimed games X-Wing cannot match its untimed state in a timed setting: it needs a tiebreaker resolution that matches what would have happened had the game ended as closely as possible. If it doesn't then it can be exploited, and any strategy within the ruleset is fair game in a tournament.

While as a TO you know the terms I'm about to clarify, not everyone reading this post will, so I'll briefly define the terms I'll use quite frequently in this post.

• Tournament Points (referred to here as TP) are scored when you win games. Winning a game scores you a Win and 5 tournament points. If a game goes to time, the player with the higher Score wins. If it's close and the scores are within 12 points of each other, you only score a Modified Win worth 3 TP. The loser scores 0 TP regardless. The very rare Draw is worth one Tournament Point. It's used to determine who the Top X players are who make the Cut, who then play each other in elimination rounds to determine the winner.
• Score is how many points of your opponents ships you've destroyed in a game. When you kill an Academy Pilot, you score 12 points. When you kill a 50 point Aggressor, you score 50 points. It's used to tiebreak timed games and to calculate MoV.
• Margin of Victory (MoV) is 100 plus the difference between you and your opponent's scores if you win, and 100 minus that difference if you lose. If you table your opponent (100 points) and they kill one Aggressor (50 points) then your MoV is 150 and theirs is 50. In any game, there's a total MoV of 200 split between the players based on how close it was. The total MoV across all games you play is used to tiebreak when The Cut is made when players have equal Tournament Points: if you have a higher total MoV, you're more likely to make The Cut.

The problem with Score is what Vorpal calls its low resolution: it can only match the percentage of your list you've lost to the nearest ship. This creates a disconnect in Score and in MoV between how much damage you've done to a list and how much damage your score represents.

Take these examples. I've used examples where all the ships cost the same to simplify it.

• A TIE swarm containing 12 point TIE fighters loses MoV in eight jumps. Kill one TIE and you score 12 points, two and you score 24, and it continues. 0/12/24/36/48/60/72/84/100¹.
• A squad with five Kihraxz fighters scores 0/20/40/60/80/100.
• A squad with four 25pt B-wings scores 0/25/50/75/100.
• A squad with two 50pt Aggressors scores 0/50/100.

Each ship is a package of points that you score all of or none at all.

If you kill 49% of a list then ideally your score should be 49 points.

• However, you kill 49% of that TIE swarm, you score 48 points. Kill 48% of the K-swarm and you score 40 points. Kill 48% of the B-wings and you score 25 points. Kill 48% of the Brobot squad and you score nothing.
• If you kill 51%, then you score 48 points against the TIE swarm, 50 against the K-swarm, 50 against the B-wings and 50 against the Aggressors.
• If you kill 70 points, you score 60 against the TIE swarm, 60 against the K-fighters, 50 against the B-wings and 50 against the Aggressor.
• If you kill 90 points, you score 84 points against the TIEs, 80 against the K fighters, 75 against the B-wings and 50 against the Aggressors.

In some cases, the MoVs are similar, and in some cases they significantly favour fewer ships. The squads with more ships are practically never favoured to a significant extent, and I say practically because there's probably one uberare corner case.

The point I'm making here is that each list is losing Score at a different rate as it takes damage: the actual damage you do is rounded down to the nearest ship. A squad with two 30 point ships and a 40 point ship can only lose Score (and the opponent gain it) in those jumps.

As bad as I make it look, this imbalance usually isn't that damaging. It's there, but does it mean the K-swarm always beats the B-wings? Not usually, no. If those two lists beat each other to dust then the finishing MoV'll be something like 120-80 or 125-75, depending on which side won. It's a minor distortion that so far hasn't caused much of a problem. The squads with fewer ships are advantaged but not by much. It's not big enough to actively exploit: it doesn't add up enough to make a significant difference.

The problem is that when you get a really big ship pointswise, Score in timed games and MoV in all games can be exploited by Point Forting: by making the score jump of one or more ships as big as possible. This results in their opponent's Score increasing less easily, increasing the likelyhood of a Modified Win instead of a Loss or Full Win over a Modified Win in a timeout situation. It also results in not insignificantly higher MoV scores (as detailed later, it's not that hard for an Aggressor Squad to score 200-0 on MoV, whereas more populous lists struggle to do that against even a vastly inferior opponent), which across many Swiss games adds up and makes it easier for them to make the Cut.

Take our examples from before. Our TIE swarm, our K-swarm, our B-wing squad and our Aggressors.

• If the 8 Academy TIE swarm kills a list on its last hit point the opponent scored 84 points and MoV is 116 - 84.²
• Kswarm, 80 points, 120 - 80.
• B-wings, 75 points, 125 - 75.
• Aggressors, 50 points, 150 - 50.

This is if the players are losing ships one by one to focus fire, the time when MoV is at its most accurate.

What if players are trying to exploit MoV though, by keeping that one high point ship alive until the end?

• For the TIEs to score full MoV, they need to keep all eight TIEs alive and table the opponent.
• For the K-fighters to score full MoV, they need to keep all five Kihraxz fighters alive and table the opponent.
• For the B-wings to score full MoV, all four B-wings must live and table the opponent.
• For the Aggressors to score full MoV, both Aggressors must survive and the opponent must be tabled.

For the TIEs, this is pretty much impossible against an equally skilled opponent, same for the K-fighters. The B-wings might pull it off if they utterly slaughter the opponent.

The Aggressor has a decent chance of pulling this off.

The new large ship rule breaks the MoV jumps of the Brobot List into 0/25/50/75/100, which is the same as the 4 B-wing swarm. It now loses MoV at the same rate as the B-wings and is still better off than the TIE swarm. The worse affected list by this change, 4 x Lambda Shuttle, now goes (assuming 24 point FCS Lambdas) 0/12/24/36/48/60/72/84/100, which is the same as the TIE swarm.

True, imbalances still exist that are inherent in the scoring system, and yes, there could be improvements made to it.

The most powerful extension of the scoring (and thus MoV) would be total partial scoring, where each ship gives up Point Cost times Health Remaining divided by Health, or put it more simply its points are split evenly across its damage. This is as far as MoV distortion can be minimised: the MoV jumps are tiny. While this may not sound at all mathematically demanding to you or me, the thread where MajorJuggler suggested it was weighed down and sunk by people complaining it was too difficult and time consuming to punch three numbers into a calculator for each surviving ship.

FFG instead went for simplicity, or at least decided to try simplicity first. Large, high cost, survivable ships were causing the problem, so they made them give up half their score at half health. Yes, you could hypothetically still point fort with small ships, but I've yet to see a small ship point fort worthy of the title.

Is it perfect? No. What it is, however, is an improvement. It's higher resolution (more closely matches actual damage dealt) than the previous system.

It's not perfect and I doubt any X-Wing tiebreaker ever will be. But it's harder to exploit and more importantly, it's better than what we had before.

And if it's better than what we had before, then I think it was a change worth making.

^{1: If you table the opponent's list, you score 100 points regardless, hence why this number isn't 96.}

^{2: Again, seemingly odd number because the 8 Academy Swarm in the example is a 96 point list.}

If small-based point fortresses turn out to be a problem, maybe we'll see half-kill half-point scoring extended to small-based ships costing more than 33 points (or thereabouts).

So just to add a little detail to the original match, I was the player that Stone flew against in the tournament. It was my first time ever flying brobots at an event (I normally play a Boba/Kath list) but had just painted my ships so wanted to give them a try. I'm not a hard core competitor, but I've won the local and placed a few times, so I'm a fairly solid player. I'm offering this context to help color the 'fair accounting for the way the game went' to try to marry up the points from how the game felt vs. what story the points tell at the end of the day. I'll also say, I not really upset about this because at the end of the day, I had a good game and I enjoyed it, so this isn't any sort of 'I should have won MORE' complaint.

I think Stone will agree with me, I flew very aggressively - there was no point where I ran away or tried to bunker points. I committed to Miranda early because I knew she'd be dangerous if she got to live long. First enchange, only 1 IG was in range, second round I had both on her. She was at 2 hull at the end of that round. Dice are dice, I put 12 dice at her and 7 of them landed. The problem that followed was that Stone's hitters then put themselves in a position where to chase and finish Miranda, I would going to get Ionized and put on a serious defensive if not losing a ship from it - he forced me to commit to switching off to them and lane blocked with a prox mine. This was good play on his part. I did, and I was able to deal with both of them fairly quickly, but it cost me letting Miranda regen shields for 4 turns. My ships swung back into position; one was able to take a shot and I got her down to 1 hull when time was called. One more round, and I would have had her as well. My IGs were at 4 hull and 2 hull but both still flying strong into combat and not running to bunker. I won the game by 7 points on paper, but Stone and I both agreed at the end, the game was a clean win on my part - it wasn't a skin of the teeth 7 point difference in the end result, but that's how it comes out on paper.

The Aggressor taking 4 shots over the course of the game to give up 25 points makes no sense to me, nor does the Firespray giving up 5 (even more likely as it's a lot less defensive). For 4 points to kill a Z-95, I get 12. I get the math people are doing and I see the points that are being made around how the system can be abused - honestly I think the issue is less around base size but total health: If the bulk of the most eggregious abuses come from ships with more than 10 health (11+), use that as the cut off for the half point MoV surrender. If the K-Wing loaded up to 50 points takes 9 health to get ANY value from, why not the Firespray loaded to 50 points at 10 or the IG at 8? Using that thought, not only does it specifically focus on the 'bunker' ships that were the source of the issue, but it also allows for, help us all, future small base ships that for some reason break the mold. Or if the thought is to set it at 8 total health, to make sure all large base ships are included, that would at least also capture the Punisher, K, B and any new big health/small base ships released in the future.

So again - while I dont think the new change accurately reflects the results of the match we had, it was a great game. I have no real attachment to brobots at all, but I will miss playing my Firesprays as I do feel like I'm being made to give up on playing large ships at events until this shakes out better.

• A TIE swarm containing 12 TIE fighters

Great post! But your math is off. I would love to have 12 TIE fighters in 100 points....

That's a typo. 12 point TIE fighters.

If small-based point fortresses turn out to be a problem, maybe we'll see half-kill half-point scoring extended to small-based ships costing more than 33 points (or thereabouts).

I think if small-based point fortressing becomes an issue that will serve to prove that this new MOV model has failed in its ultimate goal and has only merely moved the goal post. If that does become the case, I fear all these wonderful ships with upgrades will go the way of the dodo and it will be back to BBBBZ and like builds.

This isn't just about MoV. The BroBots lost because of the scoring. Two half dead BroBots lost to Miranda. I don't think this is the same thing your group has been doing.

Exactly. The Aggressors did exactly the right thing -- they forced the division of damage perfectly -- and got completely screwed for it.

Think about it: if they were 5 HP left and 3 HP left (not ideal tactically), they win. But at 4 HP and 4 HP (ideal, tactically), they lose (well, only got a modified win, but this could result in a loss).

And, yes, this screws Firesprays, Lambdas, the brand-new YV-666, and the soon-to-arrive Ghost.

It's a rule that punishes damage-division tactics and rewards high-HP ships that don't happen to have Large bases. It's a bad rule, and with the advent of TLTs and ordnance, it's an unnecessary rule. It's a rule that doesn't treat the disease -- Large-boost -- but lazily treats the symptoms and doesn't care what else it does in the process.

Three strikes.

The best that can be said for the rule is that, because of the way it was enacted, it can easily be repealed. It won't be, but it could be.

If small-based point fortresses turn out to be a problem, maybe we'll see half-kill half-point scoring extended to small-based ships costing more than 33 points (or thereabouts).

I think if small-based point fortressing becomes an issue that will serve to prove that this new MOV model has failed in its ultimate goal and has only merely moved the goal post. If that does become the case, I fear all these wonderful ships with upgrades will go the way of the dodo and it will be back to BBBBZ and like builds.

In the unlikely event that it does they'll just extend the range of partial points to cover more ships.

This isn't just about MoV. The BroBots lost because of the scoring. Two half dead BroBots lost to Miranda. I don't think this is the same thing your group has been doing.

Exactly. The Aggressors did exactly the right thing -- they forced the division of damage perfectly -- and got completely screwed for it.

Think about it: if they were 5 HP left and 3 HP left (not ideal tactically), they win. But at 4 HP and 4 HP (ideal, tactically), they lose (well, only got a modified win, but this could result in a loss).

And, yes, this screws Firesprays, Lambdas, the brand-new YV-666, and the soon-to-arrive Ghost.

It's a rule that punishes damage-division tactics and rewards high-HP ships that don't happen to have Large bases. It's a bad rule, and with the advent of TLTs and ordnance, it's an unnecessary rule. It's a rule that doesn't treat the disease -- Large-boost -- but lazily treats the symptoms and doesn't care what else it does in the process.

Three strikes.

The best that can be said for the rule is that, because of the way it was enacted, it can easily be repealed. It won't be, but it could be.

The OP is describing a match where the Brobots won, but not by as much as he thought they should have.

I think if small-based point fortressing becomes an issue

It won't, because "point-fortressing" wasn't the actual problem. The MOV advantage is simply a happy (for Large-ship players) side-effect of the actual problem: Large-ship Boost, which allows ranging out of and arc-dodging out of retaliation.

Small ships can't put enough guns on Large ships (because of the huge advantage they have with Boost), the Large ships don't die, and the Large ships thus score massive MOV.

The logical way to resolve that would be to fix the actual problem -- Large-Boost -- for exactly the same reasons that Large-BR was fixed. You fix Large-Boost, and Small ships have a fair chance to kill Large ships.

The illogical way is to fix the side-effect -- MOV advantage -- while ignoring the actual problem, and without demonstrating concern for the unintended consequences.

It's pretty baffling.

The OP is describing a match where the Brobots won, but not by as much as he thought they should have.

Yes, I'm aware, and my awareness is reflected in the quote you used of my post. The OP was right. He would have been more right if it has resulted in an actual loss, which is possible under this rule.

In Armada and Imperial Assault, the tournament format has a built in Round Limit (10 in IA Skirmish, 6 in Armada) and was designed around this with objectives from the start.

Where are you getting a 10 round limit in IA from? I don't see that as one of the conditions to end a match in the tournament rules. I don't see it in the Skirmish rules either.

One thing that Armada does that I really like is that the tournament score that comes out of the match varies based on what the MoV of the match was. There are always 10 points given for a game. In a very close match, both players walk away with 5 tournament point and a match that ends with the victor tabling his opponent and not giving up many points awards 10 to the winner and 0 to the loser. Decisively winning 2 matches and barely losing 3 nets you more tournament points than being undefeated but having nothing but close matches.

I think if small-based point fortressing becomes an issue

It won't, because "point-fortressing" wasn't the actual problem. The MOV advantage is simply a happy (for Large-ship players) side-effect of the actual problem: Large-ship Boost, which allows ranging out of and arc-dodging out of retaliation.

Small ships can't put enough guns on Large ships (because of the huge advantage they have with Boost), the Large ships don't die, and the Large ships thus score massive MOV.

The logical way to resolve that would be to fix the actual problem -- Large-Boost -- for exactly the same reasons that Large-BR was fixed. You fix Large-Boost, and Small ships have a fair chance to kill Large ships.

The illogical way is to fix the side-effect -- MOV advantage -- while ignoring the actual problem, and without demonstrating concern for the unintended consequences.

It's pretty baffling.

It might be that the change wasn't actually targeting what you wanted it to target.

If the fix was that large ships on the whole are still OP, then, no, it doesn't fix the problem.

However, if the fix was because there was a concern that MoV was limiting list variety because of point fortresses, then it does. I think there is plenty of evidence that this was actually their concern (the article for starters).

It does come at a time when there are a couple of cards that might hurt those ships competitively as well, so maybe it feels like it wasn't needed, but -- even if that is the case -- there might be upcoming cards that put us right back there without the change (we're already seeing that to some extent in Kenkirk+Palpatine).

If small-based point fortresses turn out to be a problem, maybe we'll see half-kill half-point scoring extended to small-based ships costing more than 33 points (or thereabouts).

I think if small-based point fortressing becomes an issue that will serve to prove that this new MOV model has failed in its ultimate goal and has only merely moved the goal post. If that does become the case, I fear all these wonderful ships with upgrades will go the way of the dodo and it will be back to BBBBZ and like builds.

Good. The game is best played with BBBBZ like builds. Where PS bidding is nuanced, and ships are at best soft counters to each other. A meta where generally 30 points of ship A is roughly equal to 30 points of ship B, not one where your 60 points of Academy TIE Fighters have already lost to a 60 point Han.

A meta where all of your ships only move once, perform one action (that they only get if they're not stressed, haven't bumped, and haven't flown over an obstacle), and attack once a turn against something in their arc.

You want to know why I hate the current/recently passed 2 Super Ship meta? Let's take a 48 point Super Corran for example. How many things does it get to do a turn?

Free shield regen.

An extra attack.

A free Target Lock to go with that extra attack.

An extra action on top of its freebie TL.

________________________________________

It took Evade as one of it's actions. That's one damage canceled.

It rolled at least 3 green dice, and it rolled Evade, Focus, Blank. That's 2 damage canceled, 3 if it had focus.

Next maneuver it does a green. That's a 3rd/4th damage cancellation.

And that's not even counting the damage cancelled by firing twice at PS 8 with your freebie TL and dumping 5-6 damage onto something, or the damage simply nullified by having high PS BR/Boost.

How are 4 Academy Pilots or 2 X-Wings even supposed to compete with that? B-Wings maybe, and even then Corran still has the advantage.

Give me a meta composed entirely of Blue Lightning Vs. TIE Swarm dittos any day over that broken ****. This is why many of us who hated Fat Turretwing/2 ship lists in general love TLT and the large base MoV fix, they force the game to go back to how it clearly was intended to play.

All of the "wonderful ships with upgrades" that you so dearly love were the ones ruining the game. I'm glad that they've autolost right out of the meta, good riddance.

This isn't just about MoV. The BroBots lost because of the scoring. Two half dead BroBots lost to Miranda. I don't think this is the same thing your group has been doing.

Exactly. The Aggressors did exactly the right thing -- they forced the division of damage perfectly -- and got completely screwed for it.

Think about it: if they were 5 HP left and 3 HP left (not ideal tactically), they win. But at 4 HP and 4 HP (ideal, tactically), they lose.

And, yes, this screws Firesprays, Lambdas, the brand-new YV-666, and the soon-to-arrive Ghost.

It's a rule that punishes damage-division tactics and rewards high-HP ships that don't happen to have Large bases. It's a bad rule, and with the advent of TLTs and ordnance, it's an unnecessary rule. It's a rule that doesn't treat the disease -- Large-boost -- but lazily treats the symptoms and doesn't care what else it does in the process.

Three strikes.

The best that can be said for the rule is that, because of the way it was enacted, it can easily be repealed. It won't be, but it could be.

It doesn't screw Firesprays, YV-666's, or the Lambda. Least of all the Lambda. Congrats, you've killed half of a Lambda. Here are your meaningless 10 points. Not every large base has to have 20 points of upgrades stacked onto it, they'll be fine.

You also aren't required to sink 70 points into a Ghost either. Even if it does screw the Ghost, it's fine. Anything to prevent the IHOP meta.

I don't know about that.

If you think about MoV for the Aggressors being a quartet of 3-AGI 25pt Z-95s (I know, just run with it) when it comes to MoV, you'd /much/ rather have 5HP spread between two ships and 3HP on a third (With your fourth having taken 5 hits and exploded impressively) than two perfectly healthy and two perfectly dead.

If there's an issue, it's going to be Miranda - she's got the inbuilt ability to regenerate and run like crazy to points fortress, even if she's a dramatically less dangerous combatant in the process than an HLC Dash doing the same tactic. It's possible that she'll become a problem; it's equally possible people will learn how to hunt her down and kill her. She can negate 2HP a turn, has one more health than a B-wing, and can only regenerate while she's shooting, after all.

It might be that the change wasn't actually targeting what you wanted it to target.

If the fix was that large ships on the whole are still OP, then, no, it doesn't fix the problem.

However, if the fix was because there was a concern that MoV was limiting list variety because of point fortresses, then it does.

If so, then there's an even worse disconnect than I thought.

X-Wing players, in my experience, don't build and pick lists with the idea, "If I only do 'pretty well' with this list, I might still make the cut." X-Wing players build and pick lists with the idea, "This is a powerful list, and I can kick ass with it."

Accordingly, in the nightmare meta we hopefully just left behind forever, people flew two-ships lists featuring -- all but invariably -- strong turrets and Large-Boosting. They picked those ships because they led to wins, due to their power, not because they led to high MOV.

Did they lead to high MOV? Yes. When you can't kill a ship because it can Boost out of arc and range as much as it wants, those lists are going to have high MOV.

So, again, the idea that the problem that needs fixing is "high MOV" is simply bizarre. High MOV results from the actual problem Fix the actual problem, Large ships actually start losing to lists that can get guns on them, and MOV becomes exactly what it's supposed to be: a tie-breaker. Can people still take Large ships and get high MOV? Sure. But fix the actual problem and those people start risking extremely low MOV, as they start losing ships.

"Fixing" MOV to stop the dominance of Large ships simply makes no sense, except in one -- IMO dispositive -- respect: it's the easiest thing to do and still look like something's actually being done.

It helps stop large based ships. If I'm flying 7 Z-95's I can simply half ass my way to 7 damage onto a Falcon and leave it alone once I've gotten enough points out of it. Whereas before you had to put all of your effort into taking off that last handful of health even if it put you in a terrible spot turn after turn, now you can just put enough damage on one to get half points and leave it be, potentially forcing it to come to you instead of it running off with 60 god damned points.

You want to nerf large ship boost instead of large ship MoV in order to save the Firespray and Lambda and such from inevitable doom, but whenever a nerf is suggested we're told that we can't nerf large ship boost because that would hurt the Lambda and Firespray because they NEED large ship boost!

It might be that the change wasn't actually targeting what you wanted it to target.

If the fix was that large ships on the whole are still OP, then, no, it doesn't fix the problem.

However, if the fix was because there was a concern that MoV was limiting list variety because of point fortresses, then it does.

If so, then there's an even worse disconnect than I thought.

X-Wing players, in my experience, don't build and pick lists with the idea, "If I only do 'pretty well' with this list, I might still make the cut." X-Wing players build and pick lists with the idea, "This is a powerful list, and I can kick ass with it."

Accordingly, in the nightmare meta we hopefully just left behind forever, people flew two-ships lists featuring -- all but invariably -- strong turrets and Large-Boosting. They picked those ships because they led to wins, due to their power, not because they led to high MOV.

You want to nerf large ship boost instead of large ship MoV in order to save the Firespray and Lambda and such from inevitable doom, but whenever a nerf is suggested we're told that we can't nerf large ship boost because that would hurt the Lambda and Firespray because they NEED large ship boost!

Well, the people saying that are wrong.

Not that the Firespray and Lambda and YV-666 and Ghost and even the Aggressor don't (to various degrees) need Boost.

They do.

But it is possible to shorten Boost and provide the facing-change that those Large ships need without the ranging and arc-dodging that are so clearly superior and broken on Large ships.

Shorten Boost. More Small ships get guns on targets. Large ships can be outflown and outgunned. Large ships can still turn around faster.

Shorten Boost.

That fixes the disease, instead of just randomly applying antibiotics and calling it a day.

You want to nerf large ship boost instead of large ship MoV in order to save the Firespray and Lambda and such from inevitable doom, but whenever a nerf is suggested we're told that we can't nerf large ship boost because that would hurt the Lambda and Firespray because they NEED large ship boost!

Well, the people saying that are wrong.

Not that the Firespray and Lambda and YV-666 and Ghost and even the Aggressor don't (to various degrees) need Boost.

They do.

But it is possible to shorten Boost and provide the facing-change that those Large ships need without the ranging and arc-dodging that are so clearly superior and broken on Large ships.

Shorten Boost. More Small ships get guns on targets. Large ships can be outflown and outgunned. Large ships can still turn around faster.

Shorten Boost.

That fixes the disease, instead of just randomly applying antibiotics and calling it a day.

Please explain how you can shorten boost and keep it a precise movement, as it is now.