A glad, cr90, neb, and mc30 are the same on the motti scale. I propose taking the average of command value and motti value to arrive at a slightly more granular ship strength measure.

4 AFii's clocks in at 4 x (2+3)/2 = 10

3 ISD's is 3 x (3+3)/2 = 9

5 VSD's is 5 x (2+3)/2 = 12.5

9 cr90's is 9 x (1+1)/2 = 9

7 neb-b's is 7 x (1+2)/2 = 10.5

mc80 (3) + 3 x mc30 (4.5) = 7.5

A tad cumbersome. Why not just add the two values? Save yourself the division by 2 and the unnecessary .5s.

Anyway...

CR90, Raider: 2 (Motti 1)

Nebulon, GSD, MC30: 3 (Motti 1)

VSD, AF2: 5 (Motti 2)

ISD, MC80: 6 (Motti 3)

It's definitely better, but not by much

Can some explain to me the Garm-Motti scale like I'm 3 years old? (srsly...the Force may be with me, but the Maths is not)

A tad cumbersome. Why not just add the two values? Save yourself the division by 2 and the unnecessary .5s.

Anyway...

CR90, Raider: 2 (Motti 1)

Nebulon, GSD, MC30: 3 (Motti 1)

VSD, AF2: 5 (Motti 2)

ISD, MC80: 6 (Motti 3)

It's definitely better, but not by much

I wanted to divide by two just cause it feels a little bit more compatible with the original motti scale. Plus, if it made sense, it wouldn't be compatible with English measurements.

Well, here's a better way - I call it the Motti+1 scale.

Command 1 Small Ships = 1

Command 2 Small Ships = 2

Medium Ships = 3

Large Ships = 4

Easy, simple, differentiates between the CR90/Raiders and MC30/GSDs of the world.

Can some explain to me the Garm-Motti scale like I'm 3 years old? (srsly...the Force may be with me, but the Maths is not)

The Motti Scale is using the value of Hit Points that Motti would give a ship as a way to classify its capacity to take damage.

The Garm Scale is the amount of command dials (First time I am seeing it but it seems to be that) a ship has. This is a way to classify a ship on its responsiveness and capacity to handle things. More dials usually represents a more damaging ship.

The Motti scale is sometimes used to give an indication of the overall resilience of a fleet. The Motti value of a fleet is equal to 1 point per Small ship, 2 points per Medium ship, and 3 points per Large ship (the same quantities of extra Hull points that Motti gives his ships, hence the name).

So a fleet with two VSDs has a Motti Factor of 4, whereas two AF2s and two CR90s would have an MF of 6.

The Motti-Garm scale simply adds command value to the equation to further differentiate builds.

Plus, if it made sense, it wouldn't be compatible with English measurements.

It took me forever to learn your units, and now everyone looks at me as though I'm completely insane whenever I use them

Maybe I'm just dumb, but shouldn't a lower command value (i.e. better responding = better ship) give a higher score than a high command value?

Maybe I'm just dumb, but shouldn't a lower command value (i.e. better responding = better ship) give a higher score than a high command value?

While a lower command ship can respond faster it will rarely every get the benefits of tokens while ships with high command values can save those tokens and then have them for later use when needed.

I guess the Garm scale is based in the amount of tokens given out

Maybe I'm just dumb, but shouldn't a lower command value (i.e. better responding = better ship) give a higher score than a high command value?

Yes and No.

While a lower command ship can respond faster it will rarely every get the benefits of tokens while ships with high command values can save those tokens and then have them for later use when needed.

I guess the Garm scale is based in the amount of tokens given out

From a balance standpoint, I think FFG added an extra command to small ships with too much firepower to be command 1 ships, just like the larger bases are added as a handicap to the more powerful ships. So I think a combined scale of some sort factors in both.

They are also bigger ships. A GSD is what 600 m long? Where as a CR90 is 150m? A CR90 have what 30 to 50 people on it? A GSD has much more

I think MoffZen originally coined the phrase "Motti Scale" in this thread. For anyone else who's like me and isn't very familiar with the concept.

I am so proud that the Motti Scale is still considered a respectable indicator to measure a fleet's toughness @OP : It's an interesting measurement you made by adding the command values to make a measure of the responsiveness and toughness of a fleet ! I'll look into it further

____

So, my predictions for Wave 2 was that a Motti Scale of 6-8 would become the standard in Wave 2 (compared to 4-6) for Wave 1, but that wasn't counting the Rogues expansion pack that allow squadron activations without carriers (in which case it might bump down a notch).

I did clock 2 400 points games with Wave 2 content so far (I'm so late, I know !) and my lists were limited by the number of Wave 1 ships I had (so I bumped up the points with squadrons) :

1) 2 VSD, 1 Glad vs Ackbar MC80, AFMK2, 2 Corvettes : Motti scale of 5 versus a Motti Scale of 7, terrible loss for me (poor match up and extremely poor maneuvering on my part)

2) 1 AFMK2, 1 Neb B, 2 Corvettes vs 2 ISD and a Gladiator : Motti Scale of 5 versus Motti Scale of 7, a game that was much much closer, but my list still lost its steam by Turn 4.

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that I lost these 2 games (and it wasn't due to Wave 2 shenanigans, Wave 1 still can contend imho), and I'm not using these to further the predictions that the 6-8 Motti estimate for Wave 2 is appopriate. But, I did feel that I lack the board presence for 400 points with a measly Motti Scale of 5.

Let's see. . . Tournament yesterday had 1st place with a Motti Scale of 6 with 5 TIE Fighters, Second place was at 6 with 11 squadrons, 3rd place was also 6 with 7 squadrons.

I got in 2 400 pt games today!

2 ISD IIs, and a little fireball (Rhymer,Dengar, TIE Adv, & 2 Firesprays) thats a 6 on the Motti scale, squadrons need to be taken into account.

Thanks for the feedback guys

Lyraeus, I watched your Vader's Duet Batrep, and it's interesting to see that your opponent had a Motti Scale of 5 and crumbled under your power regardless of the number of squadrons.

I'm not too sure the squadrons can factor in the Motti Scale, because most of them aren't independent activations unfortunately. But I'll try to modelize how Rogue can factor in

I'm not too sure the squadrons can factor in the Motti Scale, because most of them aren't independent activations unfortunately. But I'll try to modelize how Rogue can factor in

As Motti values seem to get proportionally cheaper as you get larger ships, it seems to me that the inferred advice is to go hull-big/upgrade-light, and not buy squadrons.

I think it was fitting advice for this last summer, but then squadrons had a renaissance. (At least for me they did.) Do you think it's still good advice, or am I not seeing the subtlety?

I'm not too sure the squadrons can factor in the Motti Scale, because most of them aren't independent activations unfortunately. But I'll try to modelize how Rogue can factor in

I'm curious as to your reasoning here. Your scale is a proxy for a build's heft , correct? What does it have to do with the independence of activations?

As Motti values seem to get proportionally cheaper as you get larger ships, it seems to me that the inferred advice is to go hull-big/upgrade-light, and not buy squadrons.

I think it was fitting advice for this last summer, but then squadrons had a renaissance. (At least for me they did.) Do you think it's still good advice, or am I not seeing the subtlety?

Hey man, so I haven't gotten much experience with Wave 2 so far and I'll wait before I make any definitive comments when it comes to whether the Motti Scale is still relevant. Just a quick clarification though : the Motti Scale wasn't really aiming to say spam hulls with low upgrades, but find the minimal amount of "Motti Points" needed to not shoot your fleet in the foot by being too light on hull. In the Wave 1 meta, the sweet spot seemed to have been around 4-5 because it still allowed room for upgrades (which are needed to boost the effectiveness of the ships imho) as well as squadrons. If you look at the Worlds/GenCon tournament, both winning list were sporting Motti Scale 5 fleets. The Worlds' winner featured 2 AFMK2s and 8 A-Wing Squadrons, which isn't a squadron light build by any means yet it satisfies the Motti Scale

I probably wasn't clear enough when I mentionned activations. In Wave 1, you had to have ships to get the most out of the squadrons thanks to the squadron commands, and when the ships were destroyed, the squadrons lost a lot of efficiency (a lot less range mostly due to being forced to choose between move and shoot). Which is why, back then, they were mostly irrelevant in my mind when it came to the Motti Scale. Additionally, the higher Motti Scale you had, the longer you could command your squadrons, and there wasn't that snowball effect of decreasing damage output from the squadrons as soon as you started losing a few unimportant ships.

What really changed in Wave 2 was the inclusion of Rogues who do not require a ship for activation, meaning that even if ships are lost they're not losing their efficiency as much. However, I haven't played enough with or without Rogues to see how that changes within fleet dynamics

My predictions back then was that 6-7 Motti points would be a solid build for 400 points. After all, it's 2 AFMK2 and an MC80, or 2 ISDS with lots of squadrons.

I love the Motti scale and actively use it to plan out tournament fleets. For a while I was running 1 AFMKII, 1 Neb, 1 CR90 and 4 A-wings and changed to to 2 AFMKIIs and 1 Neb and 2 A-wings specifically because a Motti scale of 4 felt too light and easy to wipe out. As for Rogues and Villains, I don't think that they, or other squadrons really, need to be factored into the Motti calculation. The Motti calculation really measures the difficulty in tabling a certain list. Squadrons of any flavor really don't help with that.

What I have been doing recently when comparing lists is looking at head-to-head hull values compared to total "throw weight" of how many dice I can expect to throw out a turn. This is where bomber lists can really shine. A pure ships list with CF command is adding somewhere around 3 to 5 extra dice in a turn with CF spam. A bomber list with proper activation can expect to throw 8 to 10 extra dice if they are using a Fireball or B-Wings plus the CF dice from other ships or even more squadron dice. I just haven't found as elegant a way to express this survivability/damage output scale as the Motti Scale.

As for the Garm factor, I just don't see the utility it adds beyond the existing Motti scale.

So just want to make sure im adding this up right (math is hard... lol)

My isd is worth 3 pts and my vsd is 2.

So my double ISD plus one vsd is a motti value of 8?

So just want to make sure im adding this up right (math is hard... lol)

My isd is worth 3 pts and my vsd is 2.

So my double ISD plus one vsd is a motti value of 8?

That's right In a nutshell, it means that it's going to be harder to table your ships than if you had 2 ISDs and squadrons.

Actually, there might be something here, with the Garm factor touching more to the number of activations than to the toughness of the fleet. The Motti Scale is comprehensive whether you use small or large ships (either 2 ISDs or 6 Corvettes for instance), but with 6 Corvettes you have a massive activation advantage over the two ISDs, compared to lower individual resistance.

Also, since higher command ships tend to be tougher and more expensive than low command ships, the higher Garm you go, the less ships in number you will have. I'd be curious to see whether the activation advantage is interesting to add to the equation