Given engine upgrade only comes on big ships it's tricky to nerf boost.

I agree large ships should not outfly fighters but it's not as easy as altering barrel roll was.

And at four points it still needs to be of some use.

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.

A nerf to large ship boost effects the Lambda and Firespray more than a change to half health MoV scoring does. Half of a Doomshuttle is 12 points. Half of a Bounty Hunter with a few upgrades on it is ~20.

They'll be fine.

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

Perform the current Boost. Push the ship straight back by the length of the 1-template.

Try it. It's perfect. Here's how to do it with zero fuss on the table:

Straight Boost: Use the 4-straight alongside the ship (either side), aligned with the back of the ship, and push the ship forward to align the template with the front of the ship.

Left or Right Boost: Perform the current Boost. Use the 3-straight (on either side of the ship), aligned with the front of the ship. Push the ship back to align the template with the back of the ship.

Incredibly easy. Easy to see when Boosts will not be possible (so don't bother), easy to perform when they are. Actually more precise with a straight Boost, because there's no "wiggle" in using the guides.

Seriously: try it on the table.

Well the K-wing is quickly replacing Fat Han, that much is obvious. It's still new, and miranda's ability is very good. Obviously FFG did screw up with the new MOV ruling, at least in part. While Han and maybe the Brobot's certainly needed it, I do agree that every large based ship did not need that change.

I think a simple fix would be to only incorporate the MOV ruling if a large based ship has 50 or more point's invested into your list (half your list). So sure you can still sink 64 points into Fat Han, but you will be subjected the MOV ruling. Even if you just run Han with 3P0 and the falcon title, you still fall under the MOV ruling. same applies for Brobots. This nerf's the same repetitive builds we always see winning worlds, but still allows room for other large based ships to still be competitive. It also gives players a reason for Palp/doom shuttle, Boba, and either a light Chewie or light dash to accompany some fighters. While my solution isn't totally perfect, I feel it would be a better solution than FFG's current stance.

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.

A nerf to large ship boost effects the Lambda and Firespray more than a change to half health MoV scoring does. Half of a Doomshuttle is 12 points. Half of a Bounty Hunter with a few upgrades on it is ~20.

They'll be fine.

That's enough point's between a modified win and a modified loss. so how does that make them "fine" exactly?

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.

I agree. Its baffling they had no problem adjusting large ship barrell roll (which is stil good!) but left large ship boost untouched for so long. But with the new MOV scoring AND TLTs the ship seems to have sailed, i doubt we see much of the large ships in the new meta save for brobots.

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.

A nerf to large ship boost effects the Lambda and Firespray more than a change to half health MoV scoring does. Half of a Doomshuttle is 12 points. Half of a Bounty Hunter with a few upgrades on it is ~20.

They'll be fine.

That's enough point's between a modified win and a modified loss. so how does that make them "fine" exactly?

Losing a single TIE Fighter is enough points between a modified win and a modified loss.

You have to understand that we can have this argument all day, and even if I concede my point and agree that the Lambda and Firespray will now be terrible because of the large ship MoV change, I'm still okay with it.

The degree to which two ship Turretwing lists ruined the game is immense. The amount of ships they removed from the game by making them go from viable to non-viable or already kind of non-viable to super non-viable (like the Defender, X-Wing, M3-A Interceptor, Starviper, etc.) is far greater than losing the Lambda, Firespray, and YV-666.

Previous to TLT peace be upon him and the large ship MoV nerf, the only 'normal' ships in the meta were Soontir, B-Wings, and a handful of Z-95's used as escorts for fat turrets. That was it. You already didn't see many Lambdas or Firesprays.

In fact, one of the things that Lambdas and Firesprays and such have a huge problem with are hypermobile fat turrets. I actually think that much like the Phantom nerf was actually a buff for generic Phantoms because it removed one of their top predators (the named Super Phantom), the large ship MoV nerf will be a buff for Lambdas and lean builds of Firesprays because it hurts what gives them a lot of trouble: fat turrets.

I agree. Its baffling they had no problem adjusting large ship barrell roll (which is stil good!) but left large ship boost untouched for so long. But with the new MOV scoring AND TLTs the ship seems to have sailed, i doubt we see much of the large ships in the new meta save for brobots.

1.) Good riddance.

2.) I'll still be flying Lambdas and Firesprays and Brobots. Maybe not as 50+ point super ships, but they're still viable. I'm thinking of trying out Dash with a Mangler and Push The Limit and Nien Numb, doesn't seem too bad.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, and in my experience, good players consider all aspects of the meta game, including tiebreaker scoring when building a list.

Of course not. But the dominance of Fat Han and other super-turrets easily predated the MOV change. Ergo, those lists weren't developed or flown for MOV.

They were built, and rose to dominance, because of Large-Boost, combined with other factors (like C-3PO). But what they very nearly all had in common was Large-Boost.

The MOV change didn't help, that's for sure. Like I said, it was a side-effect. A great one, if you loved that horrifying meta; a nightmarish one, if you didn't. But it wasn't the underlying problem.

So "fixing" it is just weird. Especially now, when TLTs are chasing them out the door.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, and in my experience, good players consider all aspects of the meta game, including tiebreaker scoring when building a list.

Of course not. But the dominance of Fat Han and other super-turrets easily predated the MOV change. Ergo, those lists weren't developed or flown for MOV.

They were built, and rose to dominance, because of Large-Boost, combined with other factors (like C-3PO). But what they very nearly all had in common was Large-Boost.

The MOV change didn't help, that's for sure. Like I said, it was a side-effect. A great one, if you loved that horrifying meta; a nightmarish one, if you didn't. But it wasn't the underlying problem.

So "fixing" it is just weird. Especially now, when TLTs are chasing them out the door.

Overpowered things in this game are often overpowered for multiple reasons. If large ship boost was nerfed instead you'd hear just as many complaints about that. They simply chose to nerf thing, "C" instead of "A", or "B".

To me it doesn't matter either way, as long as they're out of the meta.

They could have simply made ACD cloak at the end phase or just banned ACD altogether and nerfed the Phantom that way which was my suggestion, but they choose a different route and I'm fine with it. Now you have the Phantom represented in the meta at a rate in line with other ships.

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

Perform the current Boost. Push the ship straight back by the length of the 1-template.

Try it. It's perfect. Here's how to do it with zero fuss on the table:

Straight Boost: Use the 4-straight alongside the ship (either side), aligned with the back of the ship, and push the ship forward to align the template with the front of the ship.

Left or Right Boost: Perform the current Boost. Use the 3-straight (on either side of the ship), aligned with the front of the ship. Push the ship back to align the template with the back of the ship.

Incredibly easy. Easy to see when Boosts will not be possible (so don't bother), easy to perform when they are. Actually more precise with a straight Boost, because there's no "wiggle" in using the guides.

Seriously: try it on the table.

Uh... no. There is so much room for human error in that. It is not exact, nor is it simple.

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.

I agree. Its baffling they had no problem adjusting large ship barrell roll (which is stil good!) but left large ship boost untouched for so long. But with the new MOV scoring AND TLTs the ship seems to have sailed, i doubt we see much of the large ships in the new meta save for brobots.

Not baffling at all. Did you read the proposed "solution"? There is nothing smaller than the one template. Anything going forward in this game uses those pegs found in the base and a guide that fits in those pegs. Period.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, and in my experience, good players consider all aspects of the meta game, including tiebreaker scoring when building a list.

Of course not. But the dominance of Fat Han and other super-turrets easily predated the MOV change. Ergo, those lists weren't developed or flown for MOV.

They were built, and rose to dominance, because of Large-Boost, combined with other factors (like C-3PO). But what they very nearly all had in common was Large-Boost.

The MOV change didn't help, that's for sure. Like I said, it was a side-effect. A great one, if you loved that horrifying meta; a nightmarish one, if you didn't. But it wasn't the underlying problem.

So "fixing" it is just weird. Especially now, when TLTs are chasing them out the door.

No, once 3PO and Predator were added to the mix, the Falcon started to be a much more attractive ship (the other ships weren't out until after Worlds), but those ships were also helped by the Phantom pushing out their main predator. It was also the combination of cards and not just boost -- otherwise we'd not see Chewie+Leebo do as well as it did.

However, lists that weren't flying point fortresses did better as well -- IE there was more variety, at least until the phantom started showing up in force. I think we'd have seen the meta expand again after the phantom nerd if the tiebreaker hadn't been MoV.

Once MoV came about even point fortress lists started to shrink to just two ships. MoV essentially pushed good players away from flying 4+ small ship lists because of the chance that losing one game in a large tournament meant that you were probably going to end up out of cut even after the phantom nerf, so it drastically shrank the type of competitive lists that we were seeing.

From personal experience, I've flown a couple Ace+lists (Luke+ 4ships and Jake+ 4 ships) at larger store tourneys that cut to Top 4 and I've done very well with them, including beating good players' fat turrets However, in the situations where I've lost a single game, I didn't make the cut due to MoV. In one of them, I was 5th and was behind three 2 ship lists that all had one loss. My wins were often one sided even, but I almost always lost a ship or two despite the game never really being in doubt. When added up over the course when combined with a loss, put me out of the running in terms of tiebreakers. These were very competitive lists in terms of W/L, but they were terrible meta choices because it left my margin for error so small (I couldn't afford a single loss). Regional data that I've looked at supports that in general, though there are always exceptions.

I guess my point is that you're right that big ships were good, but MoV very much drove people to them and I think it's a good step FFG took to lessen that effect, even if it looks like big ships may have bigger problems now.

Yes. Large ship boost isn't the problem. Large ship boost PLUS stacked defensive/action-economy upgrades PLUS MOV is the problem. The easiest part of that trifecta to address is the MOV advantage, so I'm pleased they're trying to do so. If the new rule doesn't go far enough or has unintended consequences it's easily changed.

Also, the move to random pairings in swiss will help swarmy lists as well.

Pairing by MOV (with old MOV rules especially) would tend to produce a top 16 with mainly 2 ship lists.

I think the thing with the MOV rules is that they attack a common problem, creating drawbacks in some rare circumstances. I mean you can illustrate examples as some have where the MOV has less than the desired effect but the truth is that the most common problem large ships caused was timed matches. This resulted in large ships having an almost automatic win. If you watch matches with any regularity you will see that most matches don't time out, it's actually quite rare really, but those that do, involve big ships and the results are almost always inevitably that when it went to points pre MOV large ship lists would win.

I agree the MOV rules aren't perfect, and certainly with a bit of extra calculation and mathmatics you could get a much more accurate system but as has already been pointed out, this would create a lot more issues with scoring than it would solve. Many tournament rules are created less for creating a fair and balanced competition and more for expediency and organization of events.

When it comes right down to it games shouldn't be timed at all and players should play until a person wins, ensuring that all matches result in either a win or a loss, but that is just not feasible for organized events.

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

Strength of Schedule was the tie breaker before MoV was ever implemented. Maybe a hybrid of Strength of Schedule and MoV then.

Or we hand the tied people lightsabers and make them fight in front of the judges, good cardio as well.

Or we hand the tied people lightsabers and make them fight in front of the judges, good cardio as well.

Or better yet...

...we have tryouts.

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

We had strength of schedule but that sucked more than MoV. When one of your opponents drops after round two or three when they realize they won't make the cut, that pretty much blows your chance of making the cut as well if it comes down to tie breakers.

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

We had strength of schedule but that sucked more than MoV. When one of your opponents drops after round two or three when they realize they won't make the cut, that pretty much blows your chance of making the cut as well if it comes down to tie breakers.

Yeah, this is my experience as someone who played Warmachine- SoS made dropping a huge deal.

I think MoV is here to stay.

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

We had strength of schedule but that sucked more than MoV. When one of your opponents drops after round two or three when they realize they won't make the cut, that pretty much blows your chance of making the cut as well if it comes down to tie breakers.

Yeah, this is my experience as someone who played Warmachine- SoS made dropping a huge deal.

I think MoV is here to stay.

If your opponent drops it reflects the sentiment that you have had the easiest path to victory, not important if it is because your opponents played a bad list, got countered or simply are bad, you just had the easiest path so you have the worst tiebreaker imo

Not in favour or against the new rule but if the mov is the problem remove the mov and make tie breakers like in magic, depending on how the opponents you've played are doing you get better or worst tiebreakers.

We had strength of schedule but that sucked more than MoV. When one of your opponents drops after round two or three when they realize they won't make the cut, that pretty much blows your chance of making the cut as well if it comes down to tie breakers.

Yeah, this is my experience as someone who played Warmachine- SoS made dropping a huge deal.

I think MoV is here to stay.

If your opponent drops it reflects the sentiment that you have had the easiest path to victory, not important if it is because your opponents played a bad list, got countered or simply are bad, you just had the easiest path so you have the worst tiebreaker imo

It's a thing over which you have literally no control, and the problem with drops is what happens after they play you not if they drop before you get to them. A player who dropped might have given you a close game or an easy game, but SoS doesn't count that.

It is not to reflect if he gave you a tough game but the path you have had, if you have win against 3 players that didnt won a game in the torunament and dropped for the last round it is clear that you have had the easiest path to the top so you have the worst tiebreaker. This is obiously an example since you cannot play against 3 all time loosers

It is not to reflect if he gave you a tough game but the path you have had, if you have win against 3 players that didnt won a game in the torunament and dropped for the last round it is clear that you have had the easiest path to the top so you have the worst tiebreaker. This is obiously an example since you cannot play against 3 all time loosers

The swiss pairings aren't going to give you three all-time losers, as you said- in fact swiss pairings are going to try to equalize the SoS for everyone anyway. MoV scoring in this kind of pairing is probably better than SoS not only because of drops but because MoV is something that you can actually affect whereas SoS is just, there. The only reason Warmahordes uses SoS over an MoV type score is because the way the scenarios work it would generally skew the game overly much and promote doing 'victory laps' and drawing out a game to score control points. There isn't a better way in that game. In X-wing, though, there is, because the scenario is a deathmatch anyway.

It is not to reflect if he gave you a tough game but the path you have had, if you have win against 3 players that didnt won a game in the torunament and dropped for the last round it is clear that you have had the easiest path to the top so you have the worst tiebreaker. This is obiously an example since you cannot play against 3 all time loosers

In my experience it is usually stronger players that frequently make the cut that drop after taking enough losses (or modified wins) to keep them from making the cut. A record of win, modified win, loss is enough to keep them from making the cut and makes the rest of the tournament a waste of their time. They probably would have ended the swiss with a 5-1 or 4-2 record if they would have stuck it out. That guy was probably a tougher match-up for you than the guy who showed up and took two losses right away but stuck it out and started drawing easy swiss matches to end up with 2 losses, 2 modified wins, and 2 wins.