No. The decision was made for a reason

The new ruling means that large ships being set up to fly very defensively and soak damage are no longer as viable - they need to actually try and take the fight to their opponents, and win the game via combat rather than relying on simply surviving and winning via MoV.

I agree. It would defeat the entire purpose of the ruling. The ruling was designed to stop 60-70 point turtles winning on points game after game.

I like the change, makes large ships a risk/reward balancing act without weakening them

I think MOV was the main point of changing it. When you get to cut time, and a certain squad type is generally at the top, leaving other squad types below the cut off, it is something to think about. All it really does is add some spice to what makes the cut. Which I'm fine with. There are very, very few cases where this will change large ship squad wins into losses.

This is again a bit of perfect being the enemy of good.

Is there a better way to do this? Perhaps, but my own data showed that after 4 nights of league play, half points worked out about the same as full partial points. The MoV was naturally different but the rankings didn't change.

Would it be better if all ships were scored for partial points? Perhaps but I think that limiting it to large ships is a good first step.

Would it be better if X points where the cut off? Perhaps but again that has issues as well.

Having seen what essentially amounts to partial points when it comes to a timed game in SWLCG, I would rather not have to do that kind of math in this game. And again, I doubt this will be changing many game wins into losses. Maybe a few downgrades from wins to partial wins, sure.

Would a half point system work better if it applied to all ships over a certain point value? Such as any ship 40+ points gives half points when brought to half health?

Miranda+TLT+C-3P0 is 38 points. Poe+LW+R5-P9+Autothrusters is the same. Soontir Fel caps out at 36 points, but can easily function as low as 32. The cutoff point should probably be 30 points, frankly, but whether hitting things like Warden Squadron Pilots carrying conner nets, Keyan Farlander, and Wedge is a good idea remains to be seen.

(Heavily edited for conciseness)

Agree, and furthermore those ships cannot effectively run away and maintain offense. Poe and Fel have their guns pointed the wrong way, and Miranda is reducing her offense to bump shields, or negating it for a turn to SLAM (not always true against low AGI targets using TLT, I admit). I think it's a case of greasing the squeakiest hinge. You do that, and see how things work, if there's still problems, they're now more obvious and you can apply more grease as needed.

Honestly, I think a lot of the decision to apply it to just large ships was a matter of ease of application. The less ships it applies to the smaller the chance for error. In the majority of cases this is going to affect one ship in a list, possibly two. Half points for being below half health is also a very easy calculation. It was a way to get the desired effect in scoring with a minimum amount of extra work.

Having each point of damage score points would be great but it would add a huge layer of complexity to running a tournament and would be extremely error prone. I'd love to each point of damage that 36 point Soontir takes be worth a dead Obsidian but that's not going to happen. There are people that screw up the math for adding up squad points, do you trust them to not screw up calculating scores?

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

No.

Here is just about everything you need to know about partial points. I should just link to this post later anytime the topic comes up.

1. The fundamental goal in X-wing has never been to remove individual ships off the board. The goal is to remove the entire opposing squad off the board.
2. Contrary to popular belief, focus fire is not always the correct tactical choice. There are many well respected individuals in the community that insist that the best tactical approach and the way the game philosophically should be played is to always encourage ships getting removed from the table. They view any divergence from this strategy as bad tactics that should not be rewarded. They are absolutely wrong. See point #1. I have won games because I have ignored finishing off a fleeing ship and instead attacked a different target that is actively engaged in combat. Thankfully my games almost never go to time, so this has not been a practical issue. However, with the new scoring system if I were playing against an unscrupulous player that runs his low health ships away and slow plays to artificially kill the clock, I can now lose the match having killed one or two of his ships, taking the remaining ships down to 1 HP, while I still have two 4HP BroBots. See point #5 below.
3. The scoring system cannot make bad ships good, nor can it fundamentally change the meta the way strong pilots and upgrade cards do. For example, Twin Laser Turret will do more to curb large base ships than the new scoring system will.
4. Slow playing to abuse the scoring system to your advantage is against the rules, but it is fundamentally not enforceable.
5. Any scoring system that has huge amounts of points scored for a single hit point of damage will directly result in skewed tactics vs what you would do in an untimed game, and the scoring itself will sometimes clearly result in the "wrong" player getting the win in a timed game.
6. The only way to fix the problem above is to use full partial points, where the points scored per ship is its cost times a proportion of it's damage to total health pool.
7. Implementing full partial points smoothly would require robust tournament software specific to X-wing, that performs the following:
   • At the start of the tournament, players electronically submit their list to capture hit points per ship and associated cost per ship.
   • The tournament software prints out a score sheet for each match for each round (as Cryodex does now), but with a checklist of how many hit points are remaining on all ships for both players. Each printed match checklist would be unique to each match, as it is captured in the first step and determined by the pairings.
   • The TO enters the remaining hit points per ship and the software automatically scores the results.
8. This software would have to come from FFG to be used at the Premier level. Given that their tournament software is still in beta and is intended to be used universally across all their games, this appears unlikely to happen anytime soon.
9. BroBots without partial points score MoV very well at the top end. For example, in the last 3 tournaments that I have played in (Pittsburgh Regionals, 19 player summer tournament kit with cut to top 4, NOVA Open), I had one loss in Swiss but was still the #2 ranked player because of MoV.
10. Half points on large base ships is a step in the right direction and is better than no partial points on anything. See point #9. However matches can and will still be decided incorrectly. See point #5.
11. With large base ships getting scored with half points:
    • Small based ships like Soontir Fel, Corran Horn, and Miranda will become the new Point Fortresses.
    • Three ships is the new two ships. Three ships still beats four ships for MoV purposes. Old style two ship lists that have one large base ship + one small based Point Fortress effectively gets scored as three ships.
    • BroBots effectively get scored as a four ship list.
12. I brought up everything above a long time ago. None of this is new information, and with the exception of FFGs tournament software, these are all essentially fundamental truths that have always been, and will continue to be, immutable laws.
13. This topic has been beaten to death, although there is the extremely unlikely possibility that FFG will review this list and learn something new they had not thought of before.

This thread makes me so happy

MJ wins this thread !

And again, I doubt this will be changing many game wins into losses.

I actually had a few close games that went to time during league nights when I was tracking this, that did in fact change.

I think there were 2, which doesn't seem like a lot but that was 2 games out of 12 or so that had the win/loss changed based on partial points. But that was true for half or full partial.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with point #6. The last health on a ship ought to be worth more than every other point on the ship. Perfect partial points makes sense from the goal of "what percentage of the opponent's 100 points have I destroyed?" If you treat the ships as one big pool of points.

However, this game is a simulation of discrete objects, and I feel that that should be taken into account with the scoring. In that respect, half points is a decent compromise that is easy to calculate. There likely is a better method, but I don't think full partial is correct.

I dont think its fair now. It wasn't fair before either. The change is good but it leads to frustrating situations were darth vader on 1hp is worth more than IG on 4 hull and you lose on points because the time ran out. Small ships can tank a lot of points as well. Just plz extend the rule to small ships and all will be fine.

Not a great example. A fully loaded Vader'll probably win that matchup.

Would a half point system work better if it applied to all ships over a certain point value? Such as any ship 40+ points gives half points when brought to half health?

It'd create an artifact in squad building to keep just below that value and distort tournament play from the standard game even further.

My reasoning is that 35-point Soontir Fel can turtle and run pretty effectively if he wants to, and a 40-point Miranda Doni is a giant pain to take down in the late game. Those are point fortresses with less value than a 48-point Chewie, but not by much. And if the goal of the rule change was to push players toward engagement rather than stalling, applying the rule to Large ships only pushes players toward Small point fortresses.

The thing about small ship point forts is that when you stack a small ship that high it usually loses combat effectiveness. A Point Fort needs to be able to fight as adeptly as a non-point fort. The problem point forts were 60 pt Hans and Chiraneaus and paired 50 pt Aggressors. If you get point forted to death by a 1HP Soontir Fel then you've got 23 points left at most. There aren't many things in that range that Soontir could effectively run from but not beat.

The idiocy of point forting was 60 something point Han Solo on 1 hit point beating half a list on high or full health. The only thing capable of such a wild distortion now is double TIE defenders playing the Brobot game, and I can't see anyone quaking in terror of that.

I agree the 2-ship builds were too popular but to me the new rule seems a bit unfair.

The rule removes the point fort advantage from high point large ships. It means they count as two ships for the purposes of MoV and timeout scoring.

It removes an artificial advantage of the scoring system. If you weren't playing the clock the only way it affects you is your MoV doesn't get artificially inflated over that an equally powerful four ship squad.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with point #6. The last health on a ship ought to be worth more than every other point on the ship. Perfect partial points makes sense from the goal of "what percentage of the opponent's 100 points have I destroyed?" If you treat the ships as one big pool of points.

However, this game is a simulation of discrete objects, and I feel that that should be taken into account with the scoring. In that respect, half points is a decent compromise that is easy to calculate. There likely is a better method, but I don't think full partial is correct.

See points #1 and #5.

MJ, I'm glad you brought up point #2 both here and in the podcast. It's true, and not often discussed.

Slow play/stalling is completely enforceable. You just need to call a judge over.

Slow play/stalling is completely enforceable. You just need to call a judge over.

How often have you called a judge over and had your opponent disqualified, or at least given more time to play the match out? In my experience that happens at best 1 time out of 20. Actually it has been exactly zero out of 20+. Your mileage may vary.

Regardless, slow play is fundamentally undefined by the rules and therefore is fundamentally not enforceable.

Slow play to abuse the scoring is still a symptom not the cause.

I have yet to play someone who was slow playing. But, I have yet to play someone where it was done in order to stall the game. It is one of those things that cannot have a set defination. It is something that you can only recognize when you see it.

Slow play/stalling is completely enforceable. You just need to call a judge over.

So you spend some time to get a TO to come over. You and your opponent spend some time discussing the situation with the TO. If running down the clock is what your opponent is trying to do, calling over the TO is helping him do just that. Now that the TO is there watching the round, your opponent can still play with some deliberation and not as quickly as you'd like. The TO isn't a chess clock. Your opponent can still move around the table, check different vantage points and angles, set down all of his dials then pick them up and adjust them. None of these things are illegal.

The same situation that would cause someone to slow play would cause a player to be more deliberate and careful with his moves. The difference between slow play and deliberation is purely one of intent. "This is my game to lose, I need to be extra careful" is legal while "I need to run 15 minutes of the clock" is not but to an external party they will look a lot alike.

Remember it is just as illegal for you to rush your opponent as it is for them to purposely slow play.

I'm not a fan of the new ruling. I honestly think it allows weaker players to win matches they shouldn't have won. I'm saying that as someone who has been running only small ships for quite awhile. Beating large ships is not some crazy anomaly that rarely happens. It can happen pretty consistently. At gencon I went 5-2 and played large based ships every round except 2 and barely didn't make the cut. If this scoring was in effect there would be no way Phildo would have made the cut and he went 0-2 and then had to win out without losing any ships and I'm pretty sure he only lost oicunn 1 time during the other 5 matches and that is pretty god **** impressive to do with a low ps decimator. Almost anybody with any list can get a decimator down to half health that is no accomplishment and should not award any points.

1. Implementing full partial points smoothly would require robust tournament software specific to X-wing, that performs the following:
   • At the start of the tournament, players electronically submit their list to capture hit points per ship and associated cost per ship.
   • The tournament software prints out a score sheet for each match for each round (as Cryodex does now), but with a checklist of how many hit points are remaining on all ships for both players. Each printed match checklist would be unique to each match, as it is captured in the first step and determined by the pairings.
   • The TO enters the remaining hit points per ship and the software automatically scores the results.
2. This software would have to come from FFG to be used at the Premier level. Given that their tournament software is still in beta and is intended to be used universally across all their games, this appears unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I appreciate you responding to the concerns some people including myself about human error and delays relating to calculations. Your current list of points is a well thought out and convincing argument.

Regarding the value of "the last hitpoint," Sure, it does have extra value. That ship is no longer shooting at you. That would generally be considered a significant benefit.

Slow play/stalling is completely enforceable. You just need to call a judge over.

...Slow play to abuse the scoring is still a symptom not the cause.

When it comes to the reason a partial-points rule is needed, I'm not even particularly worried about deliberate slow play. I'm much more worried about Han + 3Z versus 8 TIEs, where the Rebel player can afford to trade 3Z for 4 TIEs and then makes the rational and legal decision not to engage for the next 55 minutes zipping around forcing Range 3 shots or no shots at all.

And problem I have with the actual Large MoV rule introduced with the last update is that a 28-point Omicron + Advanced Sensors + Engine Upgrade triggers the rule, but a defensively-oriented 44-point Whisper doesn't.

I understand why FFG chose to implement the rule in this way, and at least some of the competing priorities they're trying to balance. (I think MJ called it pretty accurately.) And I'm more than willing to concede that it's possible they have that balance right. But I can see the seams and the loopholes, and that always makes me a bit uncomfortable.

No. The decision was made for a reason

The new ruling means that large ships being set up to fly very defensively and soak damage are no longer as viable - they need to actually try and take the fight to their opponents, and win the game via combat rather than relying on simply surviving and winning via MoV.

...

You can still use large ships defensively. This nerf did take a blow to large ships but only when games go to time and really only when large ships are 50+ points. Still that is for the falcon that still is 7 hits, about the same to take out a B-wing.

Large ships won't be out of the meta you can be certain about that, it is juts now they aren't a meta-requirement.

I'm not a fan of the new ruling. I honestly think it allows weaker players to win matches they shouldn't have won. I'm saying that as someone who has been running only small ships for quite awhile. Beating large ships is not some crazy anomaly that rarely happens. It can happen pretty consistently. At gencon I went 5-2 and played large based ships every round except 2 and barely didn't make the cut. If this scoring was in effect there would be no way Phildo would have made the cut and he went 0-2 and then had to win out without losing any ships and I'm pretty sure he only lost oicunn 1 time during the other 5 matches and that is pretty god **** impressive to do with a low ps decimator. Almost anybody with any list can get a decimator down to half health that is no accomplishment and should not award any points.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Well, no, I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand your point of view. Yes, you can get a decimator down to half health easily enough. Destroying one b-wing is also relatively easy; In fact, it's easier because the decimator can boost out of arc without considering its own arc and probably has Isard, which combined is almost certainly worth more than 1 measly evade dice*. Destroying a B-wing gives points. Now, getting a decimator to half health does too.

Regarding the specific example you cited; To make sure I understand, you went 5-2. Phild0 also went 5-2, starting out with a record of 0-2, correct? And when the cut to top 16 was decided, Phild0 had a better MoV?

*Unless of course the person flying the decimator tries to joust, but then, rule 101 of flying PWTs (And the Outrider) is "Don't Joust," so that's no more relevant than someone who makes no effort to keep a TLT ship or outrider at range 1

I think that half points for large ships is an interesting solution. Also, keep in mind that this change is rules based and can be adjusted at any time with a f&q update. FFG has shown it is more than willing to take steps to balance the hame so let's all sit tight and see how everything shakes out. I think this is a better solution then what they did to solve a similar problem in the star trek game where they imposed a minimum of 3 ships per list with a maximum point value of 50 points per ship. At least here our list building is not directly effected.

I think that half points for large ships is an interesting solution. Also, keep in mind that this change is rules based and can be adjusted at any time with a f&q update. FFG has shown it is more than willing to take steps to balance the hame so let's all sit tight and see how everything shakes out. I think this is a better solution then what they did to solve a similar problem in the star trek game where they imposed a minimum of 3 ships per list with a maximum point value of 50 points per ship. At least here our list building is not directly effected.

...

This from a franchise in which most of the confrontations involve two lone ships duking it out or a two-on-one engagement?

*headdesk*

Disclaimer: I have not gone through the entire breadth and width of Star Trek canon. My point is that the bulk of the series space battles, by my memory, involved the Enterprise/Defiant fighting a single ship or a handful of ships by itself, and if Attack Wing is requiring 3 ship lists, it isn't doing a very good job of representing the source material

And problem I have with the actual Large MoV rule introduced with the last update is that a 28-point Omicron + Advanced Sensors + Engine Upgrade triggers the rule, but a defensively-oriented 44-point Whisper doesn't.

I understand why FFG chose to implement the rule in this way, and at least some of the competing priorities they're trying to balance. (I think MJ called it pretty accurately.) And I'm more than willing to concede that it's possible they have that balance right. But I can see the seams and the loopholes, and that always makes me a bit uncomfortable.

This is my feeling as well how easy is it to kit out a Whisper/Echo Turtle Build or make Miranda as hard to kill as a Falcon/Decimator? Miranda with R2-D2 can get 2 shields a turn, or you can put on 3P0 for a Shield and a free evade and slam can be used to run away pretty handily. Poe with Lone Wolf, R5-P9 and Thrusters/Stealth Device isn't exactly cheap or easy to kill either, So I could see a Poe+MIranda 2 ship list being viable

Miranda is not exactly Heaver's Fat Han. 2/3rds the HP and caps at 2 damage mitigated a turn with significantly less mobility and a drop in offense if she's regenerating a shield(R2-D2 is also anti synergistic in a number of matches). Fat Miranda is obnoxious, certainly, but she's no Fat Han.

Edit: To elaborate: Much of PWTs ability to point fortress comes from their ability to Attack from any angle while moving at speeds rivalling Tie Interceptors and Jake Farrell. Miranda moves at B-wing speed unless she slams, which denies her the ability to Attack (And regenerate a shield).