I've sent a message off to FFG. Will post when I get a response.

If the points count for MOV then they should count for determining the winner - plain and simple.

If FFG is looking at large ship sales performance after the nerf and seeing that their scoring change had a much larger impact on the performance of large base ships than intended, this seems like a reasonable way to roll it back a bit. Letting those half points decide the winner might have been okay against the top large ships but made the others too big of a liability.

Eddited for clarity.

I think FFG should've clarified the purpose of changing the text rather than leaving it up to the players to decipher. There's obviously confusion, and this doesn't bode well for upcoming Store Championships as TO aren't as astute as some of the members on this forum. I don't understand why FFG would suddenly flip-flop an important rule in such a short timeframe (~3 months?) without some explanation why it didn't work.

I think FFG should've clarified the purpose of changing the text rather than leaving it up to the players to decipher. There's obviously confusion, and this doesn't bode well for upcoming Store Championships as TO aren't as astute as some of the members on this forum. I don't understand why FFG would suddenly flip-flop an important rule in such a short timeframe (~3 months?) without some explanation why it didn't work.

Large ships sales plunged?

MoV and Match Score I'm pretty sure have always been different, it's players that have confused the two.

In my opinion, the original big ship half MoV "wording" was in error. And based on the section it was in and it's context, I certainly originally read it as "half hp big ships are worth full Match Score, but provide you with half MoV, which is separate from Match Score". It was actually a surprise to me that it was ever ruled otherwise.

I've always thought the confusion comes from players who started post MoV as the main Tie Breaker. During the days where Strength of Schedule (SoS) was the main Tie Breaker, it was very clear what Match Score was.

Just to be clear:

Match Score is the amount of points destroyed by each player, and is used to determine who won.

MoV is a value based on your match score and is only used for Tie Breaker purposes.

I DO hope FFG changes this around. I always thought that the major problem with big ships was that they'd always have an advantage during Tie Breakers in the old rules. Players who were right on the line to have to use Tie Breakers we're just so unlikely to make the Top Cut of a tourney if they were flying small ships only. The case of 1 hp big ships losing to 2 full HP B Wings or something was pretty rare by comparison, in my opinion.

It also just never made sense that you could win a match and NOT actually kill a single pilot.

If you think about it in terms of killing pilots instead of killing ships, it just makes sense, especially in a dogfighting game that is all about pilots vs pilots. Pilots are just much less expendable than ships.

MoV and Match Score I'm pretty sure have always been different, it's players that have confused the two.

In my opinion, the original big ship half MoV "wording" was in error. And based on the section it was in and it's context, I certainly originally read it as "half hp big ships are worth full Match Score, but provide you with half MoV, which is separate from Match Score". It was actually a surprise to me that it was ever ruled otherwise.

I've always thought the confusion comes from players who started post MoV as the main Tie Breaker. During the days where Strength of Schedule (SoS) was the main Tie Breaker, it was very clear what Match Score was.

Just to be clear:

Match Score is the amount of points destroyed by each player, and is used to determine who won.

MoV is a value based on your match score and is only used for Tie Breaker purposes.

I DO hope FFG changes this around. I always thought that the major problem with big ships was that they'd always have an advantage during Tie Breakers in the old rules. Players who were right on the line to have to use Tie Breakers we're just so unlikely to make the Top Cut of a tourney if they were flying small ships only. The case of 1 hp big ships losing to 2 full HP B Wings or something was pretty rare by comparison, in my opinion.

It also just never made sense that you could win a match and NOT actually kill a single pilot.

If you think about it in terms of killing pilots instead of killing ships, it just makes sense, especially in a dogfighting game that is all about pilots vs pilots. Pilots are just much less expendable than ships.

If you read the September update, they actually made it clear that it was for scoring, too. Here's what it read as of Sept 17:

When calculating a score, each player receives half the total squad point value (rounded down) of each enemy large ship whose combined total hull and shields, including any Hull Upgrades or Shield Upgrades, have been reduced to half or below.

I think you're correct that players often think the two are the same thing, but the above correction made it clear in September what the intent was, I think (big ships counted as half for both score and MoV). The explanation in the rules statement that went along with the FAQ made it pretty clear, too. It's why this seems like a simple typo when they were trying to reword it (and used MoV when they meant squad points). If it was a significant enough change to warrant an explanation last fall, I'd think they'd explain it again. Maybe not, but we'll see. I mean, store champs are just around the corner...

I'm surprised that IG-88A doesn't recover a shield from destroying a ship at its same PS until after that ship has had an opportunity to attack. I would think that once the attack has completed, before another attack begins, the shield is recovered.

The attacks are basically treated as happening at the same time, so if A, at PS6 shoots an RGP and kills it, it was actually shooting at the same time trying to kill A. There's no real point where the shields could be raised.

Fel's Wrath lingers until everyone has stopped shooting.

While I agree that this is the reasoning they are using, it is inconsistent with other decisions they have made in the past. The biggest example I can think of is ACD on whisper. One of the primary goals as a Whisper player is always to shoot before other pilots of the same PS so that you are cloaked for the return shot, even though these shots are happening "at the same time."

Very good point you've made. I would like to see ACD behave as the new IG-88 clarification does. (Mostly because I'm personally no fan of the Phantom, either to play with or against.) I am too lazy at the moment to open some new tabs on my phone and see if card wording differs in such a way that would suggest different timing windows, but at first blush it certainly seems like you have noted a ruling inconsistency.

I'm surprised that IG-88A doesn't recover a shield from destroying a ship at its same PS until after that ship has had an opportunity to attack. I would think that once the attack has completed, before another attack begins, the shield is recovered.

The attacks are basically treated as happening at the same time, so if A, at PS6 shoots an RGP and kills it, it was actually shooting at the same time trying to kill A. There's no real point where the shields could be raised.

Fel's Wrath lingers until everyone has stopped shooting.

While I agree that this is the reasoning they are using, it is inconsistent with other decisions they have made in the past. The biggest example I can think of is ACD on whisper. One of the primary goals as a Whisper player is always to shoot before other pilots of the same PS so that you are cloaked for the return shot, even though these shots are happening "at the same time."

Very good point you've made. I would like to see ACD behave as the new IG-88 clarification does. (Mostly because I'm personally no fan of the Phantom, either to play with or against.) I am too lazy at the moment to open some new tabs on my phone and see if card wording differs in such a way that would suggest different timing windows, but at first blush it certainly seems like you have noted a ruling inconsistency.

I think I've found the difference:

ACD: After you perform an attack, you may perform a free cloak action.

IG-88A: After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you may recover 1 shield.

The Rules Reference has this to say about Destroying Ships:

A ship is destroyed when it has a number of Damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. When a ship is destroyed, remove it from the play area, discard all of its Damage cards, and return all of its tokens to the supply.

• If the Simultaneous Attack Rule delays a ship’s destruction, it is instead destroyed after it has had its opportunity to attack this round.

So, they are saying that the timing window for IG-88A's shield regen is not after the attack, but after the ship is destroyed. No discrepancy, apparently.

I'm surprised that IG-88A doesn't recover a shield from destroying a ship at its same PS until after that ship has had an opportunity to attack. I would think that once the attack has completed, before another attack begins, the shield is recovered.

The attacks are basically treated as happening at the same time, so if A, at PS6 shoots an RGP and kills it, it was actually shooting at the same time trying to kill A. There's no real point where the shields could be raised.

Fel's Wrath lingers until everyone has stopped shooting.

While I agree that this is the reasoning they are using, it is inconsistent with other decisions they have made in the past. The biggest example I can think of is ACD on whisper. One of the primary goals as a Whisper player is always to shoot before other pilots of the same PS so that you are cloaked for the return shot, even though these shots are happening "at the same time."

Very good point you've made. I would like to see ACD behave as the new IG-88 clarification does. (Mostly because I'm personally no fan of the Phantom, either to play with or against.) I am too lazy at the moment to open some new tabs on my phone and see if card wording differs in such a way that would suggest different timing windows, but at first blush it certainly seems like you have noted a ruling inconsistency.

I think I've found the difference:

ACD: After you perform an attack, you may perform a free cloak action.

IG-88A: After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you may recover 1 shield.

The Rules Reference has this to say about Destroying Ships:

A ship is destroyed when it has a number of Damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. When a ship is destroyed, remove it from the play area, discard all of its Damage cards, and return all of its tokens to the supply.

• If the Simultaneous Attack Rule delays a ship’s destruction, it is instead destroyed after it has had its opportunity to attack this round.

So, they are saying that the timing window for IG-88A's shield regen is not after the attack, but after the ship is destroyed. No discrepancy, apparently.

IG88A with VI is fighting Airen Cracken and Luke Skywalker with R5-D8. IG88A attacks Luke and deals just enough damage so that the number of damage cards equals Luke's hull points. Cracken attacks IG88A and passes an action to Luke. Luke uses R5-D8, rolls an eyeball and discards one of his facedown dage cards. Luke attacks and is then removed from the table with one hull point remaining.

With the way the card is written IG88A should get the shield immediately after attacking. I was a little disappointed when they came out with that ruling.

They should just change tournament rules to be the game isn't over until one side is completely dead.

And if you avoid combat for 20 minutes everyone loses and your car is set on fire.

I'm surprised that IG-88A doesn't recover a shield from destroying a ship at its same PS until after that ship has had an opportunity to attack. I would think that once the attack has completed, before another attack begins, the shield is recovered.

The attacks are basically treated as happening at the same time, so if A, at PS6 shoots an RGP and kills it, it was actually shooting at the same time trying to kill A. There's no real point where the shields could be raised.

Fel's Wrath lingers until everyone has stopped shooting.

While I agree that this is the reasoning they are using, it is inconsistent with other decisions they have made in the past. The biggest example I can think of is ACD on whisper. One of the primary goals as a Whisper player is always to shoot before other pilots of the same PS so that you are cloaked for the return shot, even though these shots are happening "at the same time."

Very good point you've made. I would like to see ACD behave as the new IG-88 clarification does. (Mostly because I'm personally no fan of the Phantom, either to play with or against.) I am too lazy at the moment to open some new tabs on my phone and see if card wording differs in such a way that would suggest different timing windows, but at first blush it certainly seems like you have noted a ruling inconsistency.

I think I've found the difference:

ACD: After you perform an attack, you may perform a free cloak action.

IG-88A: After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you may recover 1 shield.

The Rules Reference has this to say about Destroying Ships:

A ship is destroyed when it has a number of Damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. When a ship is destroyed, remove it from the play area, discard all of its Damage cards, and return all of its tokens to the supply.

• If the Simultaneous Attack Rule delays a ship’s destruction, it is instead destroyed after it has had its opportunity to attack this round.

So, they are saying that the timing window for IG-88A's shield regen is not after the attack, but after the ship is destroyed. No discrepancy, apparently.

Except that the trigger isn't "after an enemy ship is destroyed" it is "after an attack that destroys the defender". Once an attack that deals that last damage card completes, the trigger has been satisfied. Even if a ship had a way to fix that damage before it was their turn to attack they have still been destroyed.

IG88A with VI is fighting Airen Cracken and Luke Skywalker with R5-D8. IG88A attacks Luke and deals just enough damage so that the number of damage cards equals Luke's hull points. Cracken attacks IG88A and passes an action to Luke. Luke uses R5-D8, rolls an eyeball and discards one of his facedown dage cards. Luke attacks and is then removed from the table with one hull point remaining.

With the way the card is written IG88A should get the shield immediately after attacking. I was a little disappointed when they came out with that ruling.

Yeah, How does that work for Advanced Cloaking Device Whisper now? After you get an attack that hits, do all the other same pilot skill ships get to shoot at you before you get to cloak and gain a focus token?

Does Turr Phennir only get to barrel roll out of an arc after someone gets to take a shot at him?

What they are saying is that IG88A's ability doesn't give him a shield when the ship is destroyed, they are saying it gives him a shield when the ship is removed from the table. Which is dumb because that is not what the card says!

If being destroyed means that you have enough cards equal to your hull values (being removed from the table isn't destroyed, that's just what you do to a destroyed ship), then regaining hull somehow shouldn't prevent the ship from being removed from the table, it was already destroyed.

I'm going to laugh when it turns out this was just (poor wording/a typo) and all the debate and hand wringing is for nothing... Some people never learn.

It's also a marginal case that will hardly ever come up, you need IG-88A to destroy a ship at the same PS with that ship still having an attack on IG-88 available.

If the points count for MOV then they should count for determining the winner - plain and simple.

Why?

MoV is a tie breaker. It indicates the decisiveness of a victory. Fel and a half-Han left at the end of the match is a much closer game than a 127 to 73 MoV would suggest.

If FFG is looking at results and seeing that their scoring change had a much larger impact on the performance of large base ships than intended, this seems like a reasonable way to roll it back a bit. Letting those half points decide the winner might have been okay against the top large ships but made the others too big of a liability.

Half points for scoring the round would make Fel the winner and Han the loser. The change they made again now makes Han the winner. This negates the whole large ship points nerf. A 5 point win is a 5 point win. Han no longer has to joust, just take down more than he has left and run like before the nerf. This is a step backwards.

The regular score values were used in the calculation of MOV. Now they are not.

If the points count for MOV then they should count for determining the winner - plain and simple.

Why?

MoV is a tie breaker. It indicates the decisiveness of a victory. Fel and a half-Han left at the end of the match is a much closer game than a 127 to 73 MoV would suggest.

If FFG is looking at results and seeing that their scoring change had a much larger impact on the performance of large base ships than intended, this seems like a reasonable way to roll it back a bit. Letting those half points decide the winner might have been okay against the top large ships but made the others too big of a liability.

Half points for scoring the round would make Fel the winner and Han the loser. The change they made again now makes Han the winner. This negates the whole large ship points nerf. A 5 point win is a 5 point win. Han no longer has to joust, just take down more than he has left and run like before the nerf. This is a step backwards.

The regular score values were used in the calculation of MOV. Now they are not.

It doesn't negate the whole change, just part of it. The scoring change happened at about the same time as a few other things that make it hard to be a fatty came into the the game. The combined effect could have just been too much, especially on ships that aren't top tier point fortresses.

I can't remember where I read/heard/saw it but FFG was keeping a close eye on the change and was prepared to tweak it if it went too far or not far enough. This seems like a tweaking to try and get things right.

There were 7 large bases in top 16 at worlds. That is plenty.

FFG hasn't even acknowledged my email to them let alone sent me back an answer.

Wondering if the nerf turned into a decline in sales of large ships which ultimately hurts the bottom line.

Anyway, still keeping a lookout for an answer from them.

FFG hasn't even acknowledged my email to them let alone sent me back an answer.

Wondering if the nerf turned into a decline in sales of large ships which ultimately hurts the bottom line.

Anyway, still keeping a lookout for an answer from them.

You understand that it is probably a bad time, right? The holiday season is kind of rough on getting things done.

What they are saying is that IG88A's ability doesn't give him a shield when the ship is destroyed, they are saying it gives him a shield when the ship is removed from the table. Which is dumb because that is not what the card says!

If being destroyed means that you have enough cards equal to your hull values (being removed from the table isn't destroyed, that's just what you do to a destroyed ship), then regaining hull somehow shouldn't prevent the ship from being removed from the table, it was already destroyed.

The rule has already been quoted and you're just ignoring it.

"If the Simultaneous Attack Rule delays a ship’s destruction, it is instead destroyed after it has had its opportunity to attack this round."

"instead"

The rules say that the ship is not destroyed when it has X damage on it. There's an exception right there that says "it is instead destroyed" later. It's not destroyed at one point and then removed from the table later. It is left where it is, and destroyed later. IG-88 gets the shield when the enemy ship is destroyed. Which is after the Simultaneous Fire rule has been applied.