I do think it would be best changed to a 0/2/4/5, rather than the current 0/1/3/5.

This change buffs narrow victories and tie games, also known as CLOSE games, which are more intense to watch anyway, and are the reason that the time limit exists at all.

Also, it results in more things that make sense.

See, in the current system, if you sum the total scores of the two players, you can get a 5, a 3, or a 2 (for a tie).

In my system, it's a 5 or a 4 (or a 4 in a tie), making it far closer to a zero-sum game (which is better for keeping score in a tournament).

Similarly, apply my version to the scenario in the Original Post, or apply it to the following microcosm instead:

Two players are evenly matched, and fight twice, resulting in one of the two following options:

Player A squeaks a victory by Player B in the first game, and loses just as narrowly in the second, as it came down to dice

OR

Players A and B tie both games, as there was less variance.

My system? A and B are both sitting at 4 points, regardless of the scenario, and have similar standing to all other 1/2 win/loss ratio games in the tourney, and can still compete for the final four.

Their system? A and B are sitting at 2 points if scenario B, or 3 points at scenario A. Moreover, neither score is good enough to ever have a shot at top 4 vs opponents who scored a full 5 point victory with a loss.

It's such a simple fix. How does the game break if it were implemented instead of the current ruling (which has its own issues?)

I do think it would be best changed to a 0/2/4/5, rather than the current 0/1/3/5.

This change buffs narrow victories and tie games, also known as CLOSE games, which are more intense to watch anyway, and are the reason that the time limit exists at all.

Also, it results in more things that make sense.

See, in the current system, if you sum the total scores of the two players, you can get a 5, a 3, or a 2 (for a tie).

In my system, it's a 5 or a 4 (or a 4 in a tie), making it far closer to a zero-sum game (which is better for keeping score in a tournament).

Similarly, apply my version to the scenario in the Original Post, or apply it to the following microcosm instead:

Two players are evenly matched, and fight twice, resulting in one of the two following options:

Player A squeaks a victory by Player B in the first game, and loses just as narrowly in the second, as it came down to dice

OR

Players A and B tie both games, as there was less variance.

My system? A and B are both sitting at 4 points, regardless of the scenario, and have similar standing to all other 1/2 win/loss ratio games in the tourney, and can still compete for the final four.

Their system? A and B are sitting at 2 points if scenario B, or 3 points at scenario A. Moreover, neither score is good enough to ever have a shot at top 4 vs opponents who scored a full 5 point victory with a loss.

It's such a simple fix. How does the game break if it were implemented instead of the current ruling (which has its own issues?)

This is pretty close to what I suggested. I can definitely see why you might want to restrict draws to 2 points (4 points total) since it means there is an overall loss of tournament points (from the closed system). This is perhaps a good way to disincentivise forcing/aiming for a draw.

I still like the idea of the modified loser getting a point, losing those close games is tough, and a point might help soften the blow somewhat. Other than I approve. I think the problem currently is the fact that a modified win feels much closer to loss than a win at present. I think realigning the points makes sense.

I was predicting a large increase in the number of MW at worlds based on the current state of the game and the change to large base MoV, I wonder if it actually played out that way or not.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

That is easy to say when you don't need to back it up with evidence. You would need to see a significant increase in the number of games going to time after the change. I'm almost certain you wouldn't see much change at all, if any. It is pretty much a "they made a change, life goes on situation", much like the large base MoV change. Sure things are different, but there aren't any worse.

All this discussion about punishing timed wins also makes anything with 2 dice attacks ever worse than it already is. A-wing squads can do well, but not quickly. The same holds true for anything with two dice with out a boost like howl runner does for ties.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

That is easy to say when you don't need to back it up with evidence. You would need to see a significant increase in the number of games going to time after the change. I'm almost certain you wouldn't see much change at all, if any. It is pretty much a "they made a change, life goes on situation", much like the large base MoV change. Sure things are different, but there aren't any worse.

All this discussion about punishing timed wins also makes anything with 2 dice attacks ever worse than it already is. A-wing squads can do well, but not quickly. The same holds true for anything with two dice with out a boost like howl runner does for ties.

Particularly with the number of defensive builds on the rise. As an example, ever tried playing out a Miranda versus a super Corran end game. Without a major mistake on one side that game goes forever.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

That is easy to say when you don't need to back it up with evidence. You would need to see a significant increase in the number of games going to time after the change. I'm almost certain you wouldn't see much change at all, if any. It is pretty much a "they made a change, life goes on situation", much like the large base MoV change. Sure things are different, but there aren't any worse.

My only evidence is years and years of gaming and tournament experience. The competitive mindset doesn't change.

And this isn't a change like Margin of Victory. That change has very little effect on victory points, but a greater change on the tiebreaker.

Plain and simple, the more appealing you make a timed win (or in this case, a modified win), the more appealing you make running out the clock.

That is easy to say when you don't need to back it up with evidence. You would need to see a significant increase in the number of games going to time after the change. I'm almost certain you wouldn't see much change at all, if any. It is pretty much a "they made a change, life goes on situation", much like the large base MoV change. Sure things are different, but there aren't any worse.

My only evidence is years and years of gaming and tournament experience. The competitive mindset doesn't change.

And this isn't a change like Margin of Victory. That change has very little effect on victory points, but a greater change on the tiebreaker.

No offence intended but anecdotal evidence plus confirmation bias is not very good evidence.

However I do get your point, yes there probably will be "some people" who would abuse it in a small number of situations, but it is just a part of the game (well all games really). For all the uproar about large base boosting ships flying away and winning on 1 hp, it was the most overblown situation ever, could it happen, yes, did it happen very often, not in the slightest.

The benefits of not punishing close wins anymore would far outweigh any abuse of the system. I'm not sure why you are so protective of VP since they are extremely arbitrary. If they originally started with modified wins as 4 points, you certainly wouldn't be here defending the change to 3 points based on your current argument which seems that you are just in the status quo camp instead and want to resist change for change sake. I guess I am in the greater good camp, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

You change the tournament points and everyone pretty much goes on with their lives with less threads about people being burned by the MW. We are not likely to see an influx of people on the boards coming and saying, man I lost a tournament because some guy won a tournament with some MWs and I should have won even though I lost more games than he did.

And.., Why can't community groups run tournaments with official FFG kits?

Well, their is usually a kit or 2 (or various components) over at that on-line selling site. A group can put in 10 a piece and come out with some nice stuff for their private event (I would like to see kits available for groups who may be far from a FLGS or whose store does not have play space).

Though it sounds like your full problem is with a specific TO...You can either find another store and become the TO of that store yourself or bring up to your concerns to the current TO who runs your events. Got to remember though...per the FFG rules the BYE goes to the person with the lowest score and is worth a 150 point win. So you either need more practice and need to kill more stuff (higher MOV) or your TO needs to start following the rules himself. Next time you get a BYE ask to see the current standings. If your not at the bottom, something is fishy.