I think its been said before, but the '4 match points per game' method should solve a lot of the scoring issues people are having. You don't even have to consider a new MoV hull/shield breakdown scoring system when a game goes to time.

Taking Bob's example into consideration:

Under current scoring method he gained 19 match points and placed 5th, while earning 3 full wins (15), 1 modified win (3), and 1 draw (1). 4 other players earned 20 match points (4 full wins and 1 loss).

Using the '4 match points per game' method Bob scores 17 match points [3 full wins (12) + 1 mod win (3) + 1 draw (2)].

The other 4 players score 16 match points [4 full wins (16) + 1 loss (0)].

Hopefully my math is right, but in this scenario Bob is seeded #1 going into the cut, which seems reasonable, and more appropriate in a way, as he was the only undefeated player through Swiss. Furthermore the player missing the cut is a player who lost a game through Swiss and doesn't have the MoV to back up their wins. Which again seems more appropriate than eliminating the player who hadn't lost and has the second highest MoV through Swiss.

Forget the trying to improve the MoV scoring for games going to time. Just improve the match points scoring system.

I think its been said before, but the '4 match points per game' method should solve a lot of the scoring issues people are having. You don't even have to consider a new MoV hull/shield breakdown scoring system when a game goes to time.

Taking Bob's example into consideration:

Under current scoring method he gained 19 match points and placed 5th, while earning 3 full wins (15), 1 modified win (3), and 1 draw (1). 4 other players earned 20 match points (4 full wins and 1 loss).

Using the '4 match points per game' method Bob scores 17 match points [3 full wins (12) + 1 mod win (3) + 1 draw (2)].

The other 4 players score 16 match points [4 full wins (16) + 1 loss (0)].

Hopefully my math is right, but in this scenario Bob is seeded #1 going into the cut, which seems reasonable, and more appropriate in a way, as he was the only undefeated player through Swiss. Furthermore the player missing the cut is a player who lost a game through Swiss and doesn't have the MoV to back up their wins. Which again seems more appropriate than eliminating the player who hadn't lost and has the second highest MoV through Swiss.

Forget the trying to improve the MoV scoring for games going to time. Just improve the match points scoring system.

I liked Bob's idea for the modified loss to be honest, so yeah a 4 point system could work better.

as per your conversation at 1:21:30 im pretty sure there is a limit to re-rolling dice. (with Zuckuss crew) (at least for attacking, you can only re-roll dice once per attack. I can only imagine its the same with defence dice.)

" Dice can be modified by multiple effects, but a die cannot be rerolled more than once. "from the core 2 rulebook

Exactly. For reference:

Full Win (destroying all opponent's ships OR >/=12 pt difference remaining at time) = 4 Match points

Modified Win (<12 pt difference remaining at time) = 3 Match points

Draw (simultaneous kill OR = points remaining at time) = 2 Match points

Modified Loss (losing the match with <12 pt difference remaining at time) = 1 Match point

Full Loss = 0 Match points

Regarding the modified loss, under the current system, it does seem strange to reward a winning player in a really close game by giving them a modified win and 3 match points, while treating the losing player of that really close game the same as you would treat a losing player that was tabled by their opponent (in terms of match points).

as per your conversation at 1:21:30 im pretty sure there is a limit to re-rolling dice. (with Zuckuss crew) (at least for attacking, you can only re-roll dice once per attack. I can only imagine its the same with defence dice.)

" Dice can be modified by multiple effects, but a die cannot be rerolled more than once. "from the core 2 rulebook

This is correct. Any dice can only be rerolled once.

But I think Sean was referring to using the ability over the course of multiple rounds since there is no restriction to using the ability, such as Jan Ors or Opportunist, whose abilities are restricted if they are already stressed. (Ie - Zuckuss takes 3 stress turn 1, you reroll 3 greens, next turn 3 more stress to force 3 more rerolls, and repeat until you have a greater pile of stress than even a stresshog or Tycho!)

as per your conversation at 1:21:30 im pretty sure there is a limit to re-rolling dice. (with Zuckuss crew) (at least for attacking, you can only re-roll dice once per attack. I can only imagine its the same with defence dice.)

" Dice can be modified by multiple effects, but a die cannot be rerolled more than once. "from the core 2 rulebook

This is correct. Any dice can only be rerolled once.

But I think Sean was referring to using the ability over the course of multiple rounds since there is no restriction to using the ability, such as Jan Ors or Opportunist, whose abilities are restricted if they are already stressed. (Ie - Zuckuss takes 3 stress turn 1, you reroll 3 greens, next turn 3 more stress to force 3 more rerolls, and repeat until you have a greater pile of stress than even a stresshog or Tycho!)

i'll re-listen to it later, you may be right, but thats how i heard it the first time.

I agree with Ed on scoring. I'm an old 40k player, and the problem with too granular a scoring system is the above-mentioned runaway leads. Some armies in 40k just had a really hard time winning tournaments (not winning games) because they tended to win close. I love X-wing's playoff system for that reason. You have to play well enough to make the cut, then you just have to win. You always have a shot to win it all, even if you're never on the top table.

Yeah, as I said during the episode a couple times, I don't like the idea of a highly granular scoring system for X-wing like Armada has.

X-wing has 3 possible outcomes:

• full win
• modified win
• draw

Armada has 6 possible outcomes:

• full win
• 4 different levels of modified wins
• draw

My 2nd point was that regardless of how many scoring gradients there are, the total number of tournament points awarded should be the same. This is completely independent of deciding how many gradients there are. Sean falsely assumed that since I want the total number of tournament points awarded to be constant (as Armada is), I also wanted to increase the number of scoring gradients (for example from X-wing's 3 to Armada's 6). Sean went out of his way to say at 38:05 that "[a lot more granularity] is actually the fix that you want".

It's not, and I never said anything to that effect.

Assigning the same number of overall tournament points regardless of the outcome is a completely different issue than how many scoring gradients there are to begin with.

And both of these issues (gradients and tournament point assignments) can be decided independently of how MoV is scored at the end of a round that goes to time. MoV is the determiner for deciding which N-gradient outcome results from the match, but you can independently change the MoV scoring the and the number of gradients N.

I think its been said before, but the '4 match points per game' method should solve a lot of the scoring issues people are having. You don't even have to consider a new MoV hull/shield breakdown scoring system when a game goes to time.

Taking Bob's example into consideration:

Under current scoring method he gained 19 match points and placed 5th, while earning 3 full wins (15), 1 modified win (3), and 1 draw (1). 4 other players earned 20 match points (4 full wins and 1 loss).

Using the '4 match points per game' method Bob scores 17 match points [3 full wins (12) + 1 mod win (3) + 1 draw (2)].

The other 4 players score 16 match points [4 full wins (16) + 1 loss (0)].

Hopefully my math is right, but in this scenario Bob is seeded #1 going into the cut, which seems reasonable, and more appropriate in a way, as he was the only undefeated player through Swiss. Furthermore the player missing the cut is a player who lost a game through Swiss and doesn't have the MoV to back up their wins. Which again seems more appropriate than eliminating the player who hadn't lost and has the second highest MoV through Swiss.

Yeah, this makes sense. The way any tournament point scoring should work:

• two draws should be worth exactly one full win
• a draw and a modified win should be worth more than one full win

In any other scoring system I can think of, a draw is worth half a win. And a modified win is by definition better than a draw, so a modified win should be worth more than half a win.

(one half) + (slightly more than one half) > (one)

This appears extremely obvious to me, but apparently the designers in 2012 did not want this, or just hadn't thought it through. Either way it's well overdue for a healthy change.

The way it works now:

• two draws (2 points) are worth less than a full win (5), or even a single modified win (3)
• a draw and a modified win (4) is worth less than a full win (5)

The way it should work:

• two draws (4 points) is exactly worth a full win (4 points)
• a draw and a modified win (5) is worth more than a single full win (4)

How the standings actually turned out:

Player 1: 20 points, 813 MoV

Player 2: 20 points, 705 MoV

Player 3: 20 points, 701 MoV

Player 4: 20 points, 678 MoV

--------

Player 5: 19 points, 752 MoV (me)

Player 6: 18 points, 559 MoV

Player 7: 15 points, 601 MoV

...

How the standings would have turned out under an equal 4 point system:

Player 5: 17 points, 752 MoV (me)

Player 1: 16 points, 813 MoV

Player 2: 16 points, 705 MoV

Player 3: 16 points, 701 MoV

------

Player 4: 16 points, 678 MoV

Player 6: 15 points, 559 MoV

Player 7: 12 points, 601 MoV

Forget the trying to improve the MoV scoring for games going to time. Just improve the match points scoring system.

Right, even if you don't change the MoV scoring for games not finishing within time, it's very easy to fix the total tournament points awarded. I strongly disagree with Sean's argument that we shouldn't change the rules because players would get confused and frustrated, but that's just my opinion. A lot of people (my impression is Kris and Sean included) don't want to change the rules just for the sake of not changing the rules.

as per your conversation at 1:21:30 im pretty sure there is a limit to re-rolling dice. (with Zuckuss crew) (at least for attacking, you can only re-roll dice once per attack. I can only imagine its the same with defence dice.)

" Dice can be modified by multiple effects, but a die cannot be rerolled more than once. "from the core 2 rulebook

If memory serves correctly, we were meaning that if Fel rolls 1 blank, and 3 non-blanks, you can take stress to make him reroll the 3 non-blanks - not that you could continually reroll the same die.

I agree. It's 2016. A long-overdue change to the match points scoring system is needed. Not changing for the sake of not changing is not healthy for the game.

Though regarding your boxing match with Kris and Sean, I think they were largely hung up on the conversation about changing the MoV scoring for games going to time, which I too agree would significantly increase time between rounds, potential for players making errors, and TO headaches, without an immediate and elegant solution to do so.

I think if the first argument you presented was the Match Points scoring improvement the conversation would have gone differently, because it seemed they were largely hung up on the robustness of an ambitious change to MoV scoring and done with any further scoring discussions after 30 minutes of that.

Its not that people don't want to change just for the sake of not changing, its that they don't want a drastic and seemingly complicated overhaul. Changing the Match Point scoring is simple and will fix many issues that exist under the current system, without requiring speadsheets and scoring tables to figure out who should be in the Top 4.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second when we consider a system where a player ahead by less than 12 points gets 3 points of 4 instead of 3 points of 5, even though I agree that there is probably a more logical method of scoring and like Lucros's method.

I asked some people more in the know than myself sometime after they went to MoV when I pointed out that it seemed like a modified Win was a double penalty. IE, you don't get full tournament points and you still take a hit on MoV, too. I also pointed out at that time a player could go undefeated and not make the cut (though it hadn't happened to me). I don't remember the exact response, but I remember the gist of it was that they didn't want close wins (modified wins) to be significant tournament wins because they were concerned that if modified wins were worth more (or they were taken away) you'd see players slow-playing more often and/or running away more often in those very close games.

Maybe they will change their mind, but as others pointed out, currently the rules are what they are and squads should be built and tactics during a game should be adjusted accordingly.

After thinking about it more, rewarding 3 points of 5 is rewarding 60% of match points for less than a 12 point difference seems pretty fair, doesn't it? Rewarding someone 75% of the match points for barely winning seems disproportional (though I agree those other two points should be awarded to the other player and that a draw should probably be worth at least 2 points for each player unless they are really trying to discourage those results).

If they went to a 4 point system where 3 of the 4 went for a modified win, they'd probably also need to adjust the margin, otherwise reasonable arguments could be made that it wasn't very "fair" there either.

I think that's a really important point on the modified win. Right now, the system is basically saying, "play to win, even if you're winning". That plus the MOV rules encourage players to engage if they're ahead. This is important to keep games fun.

Additionally, even highly granular hit points calculations to determine winner when games went to time are lacking board state information, and so will still have a significant error in determining the winner.

I don't remember the exact response, but I remember the gist of it was that they didn't want close wins (modified wins) to be significant tournament wins because they were concerned that if modified wins were worth more (or they were taken away) you'd see players slow-playing more often and/or running away more often in those very close games.

Then get rid of modified wins altogether. I would be fine by that. Why do they even have modified wins to begin with? Either you won or lost -- or in the rare circumstance you got a draw.

The mere existence of the modified win appears, at least to me, as an admission that the scoring system really has no confidence in stating who is the outright winner in a game that goes to time. So if it seems close, then you just toss your hands up in the air and give out less points.

The problem is, there are already players slow-playing to get full wins when they clearly are losing. Decimator or YT-1300 on 1 HP? No problem, you still have at least half points locked up. It can be mathematically impossible to lose in many scenarios once you get to a certain point unless you get completely wiped off the board. It is part of the reason that we are seeing small-base point fortresses rather than large base point fortresses. And it's not as simple as just calling the TO over if you think a player is slow playing, unless you are willing to turn X-wing's atmosphere into MtG level of aggressive rules checking. I don't think anyone wants that. And even if you do, it still doesn't solve the scoring error if a player legitimately ends up with a 1HP decimator vs a full health Y-wing turret TLT.

And if you are in the scenario of a possible draw, with one player clearly losing, the system clearly encourages the losing player to slow play every single time. I would argue that the possibility of a draw has gone up lately. It is not necessarily as uncommon as Sean and Kris's anecdotal past evidence would indicate. Contrary to popular belief, meta diversity in the number of top-tier viable pilots is quantitatively about the same or arguably even down from a year ago, especially weighting the strong "auto-includes" like 26 stresshog or 35 Fel.

Specifically, the possibility of a draw between two evenly matched rebel players is not as small as you might think.

• Almost all rebel lists should include a 26 point stresshog.
• The stresshog is useless once you get behind it, so the right tactic is frequently to kill it last.

Voila -- if the game is close, then the stresshogs are the last 2 ships remaining and you are in a draw scenario.

I think if the first argument you presented was the Match Points scoring improvement the conversation would have gone differently, because it seemed they were largely hung up on the robustness of an ambitious change to MoV scoring and done with any further scoring discussions after 30 minutes of that.

It was my fault for not succinctly stating the 30 second elevator pitch. Instead I let myself get railroaded -- I spent less time talking during my flight deck segment than they did -- and by the time I got around to making the 2nd point we were on rabbit trails of rabbit trails.

Additionally, even highly granular hit points calculations to determine winner when games went to time are lacking board state information, and so will still have a significant error in determining the winner.

That's correct. But that doesn't mean you can't improve on what we have now. Quoting myself from a related Nova Squadron FB post:

Like Chris says, the only way is no time limit. Unfortunately a time limit is needed. So that doesn't leave you with many options.

1) Automatically declare all unfinished games a draw.

2) Do the best you can to declare who is the victor.

#1 would be really REALLY bad for the game, as a player that is losing will be forced to slow play and drag out the game to avoid getting a loss.

#2 is the only other option, the only question is "how do you determine the victor in a way that minimizes the scoring errors?". Short of allowing a TO to arbitrarily award a player a victory (also a bad idea), you're stuck with somehow using ship points and hull/shields to "guess" at who is in the lead. FFG already does this with their scoring system, but their implementation can be VERY inaccurate.

FFG's system for scoring timed games fundamentally has two kinds of error:

• board state
• proportion of the list's hit points remaining at time

It's impossible to get around the first one (although I'm open to suggestions), but you can at least remove the error from the 2nd. Arguing to keep the error from the 2nd effect because you can't get rid of the first anyway doesn't make sense to me. The point is not to be 100% perfect, the point is to be better than we are now.

The only reason to keep the scoring system the same -- and this is legitimate -- is because you don't want to take longer between rounds for scoring. Personally, if I'm playing a 75-80 minute game, I'll gladly take another 30-60 seconds to score it more accurately. If you have a scoring worksheet, a pencil, and a smartphone, it's trivial. You don't need special software.

I don't remember the exact response, but I remember the gist of it was that they didn't want close wins (modified wins) to be significant tournament wins because they were concerned that if modified wins were worth more (or they were taken away) you'd see players slow-playing more often and/or running away more often in those very close games.

Then get rid of modified wins altogether. I would be fine by that. Why do they even have modified wins to begin with? Either you won or lost -- or in the rare circumstance you got a draw.

The mere existence of the modified win appears, at least to me, as an admission that the scoring system really has no confidence in stating who is the outright winner in a game that goes to time. So if it seems close, then you just toss your hands up in the air and give out less points.

The problem is, there are already players slow-playing to get full wins when they clearly are losing. Decimator or YT-1300 on 1 HP? No problem, you still have at least half points locked up. It can be mathematically impossible to lose in many scenarios once you get to a certain point unless you get completely wiped off the board. It is part of the reason that we are seeing small-base point fortresses rather than large base point fortresses. And it's not as simple as just calling the TO over if you think a player is slow playing, unless you are willing to turn X-wing's atmosphere into MtG level of aggressive rules checking. I don't think anyone wants that. And even if you do, it still doesn't solve the scoring error if a player legitimately ends up with a 1HP decimator vs a full health Y-wing turret TLT.

And if you are in the scenario of a possible draw, with one player clearly losing, the system clearly encourages the losing player to slow play every single time. I would argue that the possibility of a draw has gone up lately. It is not necessarily as uncommon as Sean and Kris's anecdotal past evidence would indicate. Contrary to popular belief, meta diversity in the number of top-tier viable pilots is quantitatively the same or arguably even down from a year ago, especially weighting the strong "auto-includes" like 26 stresshog or 35 Fel.

I actually don't follow your logic that getting rid of modified wins would discourage slow play and maybe I wasn't clear in my own point. Getting rid of modified wins increases the margin where slow play and running away is beneficial. Right now, draws and modified wins are NOT something you really want to play for because as you point out, they are not much better than effectively losing under the current scoring system. The goal of a player who is aware of the system should be to get more than a modified win.

The same is true of draws. Making them (or any loss) worth more points doesn't change the situation you describe at all and makes it more likely that the losing player slow plays or runs away so they maintain the points they do have.

@Bob I would just change "Should Work" to "How I would like it to work", and you have a reasoned point of view to put across.

Also as an example of a scoring system where a Draw is worth less than half a Win is Soccer(the most popular sport in the world), which is the 0/1/3 split I proposed as a change I would like to see during the discussion.

anyway,

I have no problem with improving the game, my point was that I do not think your proposed change to how MOV was calculated was an improvement, I felt it added an unnecessary level of complexity that is only going to slow down an event. Round timings and MOV scoring is something that we have been talking about for over a year. Myself, Bob, Ed, Chad and Sean have all weighed in on how it affects the list you take and we even had a segment about if its OK to run away with A-Wings. Before this episode, our advice (or my interpretation of it...) had always been that it was something you needed to consider when building your list and when playing the game.
This was the first time it had turned in to a "The system is broken and needs to change" conversation.

I would also bring up that a lot of my response and I can only imagine Sean's as well were formulated in response to Bob's proposals as he had kept his results and opinions on his event secret and dropped them on us in the flight deck. I have no problem with this, and feel that it did lead to some good content but would point out that whilst bob had time to stew over his opinions ours were on the fly.

I can see merits to lots of things;

A 0/1/2/3/4 break down of scoring gives a nice consistent scoring level and keeps the pack closer together for a more exciting event.

A 0/1/3 System with a draw being awarded if the player can not gain a lead of more than 11 points at time encourages a lot more aggressive play and could rock the meta

No change at all is easy to implement, the meta is varied enough and people are used to the dynamics of building a list to survive (6 A-Wings), trying to table your opponent quickly (BroBots)

What made the discussion more "heated" was that if an opinion is aired unchallenged on the show than it can be construed as the shows opinion. Or even worse the show pushing an agenda.

I was not willing to have a segment where the "show" is basically telling FFG that they are doing a rubbish job just because one of the cast did not make the cut of an event which we ran the risk of it sounding like. (edit)

Kris

_{I'm trying to find the source but someone made a strong case that it was in fact the Fett and that it was designed by Paul Heaver from his last Worlds win. His new card was supposed to come in wave 8 and the "Bob..." upgrade really is only one in three cards yet to be spoiled besides actual pilots and such in that expansion.}

_{Hopefully we get a new reveal article soon for the Punishing One. I forget sometimes that the Punishing One has a white 2 S-loop}

It's artwork is same as a Boba Fett card from the LCG so pretty safe to assume it is him.

I applaud Kris on this episode and his countering of Bobs rant.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second when we consider a system where a player ahead by less than 12 points gets 3 points of 4 instead of 3 points of 5, even though I agree that there is probably a more logical method of scoring and like Lucros's method.

I asked some people more in the know than myself sometime after they went to MoV when I pointed out that it seemed like a modified Win was a double penalty. IE, you don't get full tournament points and you still take a hit on MoV, too. I also pointed out at that time a player could go undefeated and not make the cut (though it hadn't happened to me). I don't remember the exact response, but I remember the gist of it was that they didn't want close wins (modified wins) to be significant tournament wins because they were concerned that if modified wins were worth more (or they were taken away) you'd see players slow-playing more often and/or running away more often in those very close games.

Maybe they will change their mind, but as others pointed out, currently the rules are what they are and squads should be built and tactics during a game should be adjusted accordingly.

Fair points. Let's explore some options using 4-point system.

______

#1: Go back to 33 points difference:

Full Win (4) / Full Loss (0) = destroying all of opponent OR >/= 33 pt difference at time

Modified Win (3)/ Modified loss (1) = < 33 point difference at time

Draw (2) = Simultaneous kill OR equal points remaining at time

Larger margin therefore scores like 64 - 33 nearing the end of the game, players are awarded a more appropriate % of the games match points based on their score in that game (75% for the winner; 25% for the loser). Problem lies in the really-close games 64-60. 64 player can run away at the end to secure the modified win and the 75% of the match points that go along with it. Not real fair to the loser who fought a very close match.

______

#2. Adjust the Draw margin:

Full Win (4)/ Full Loss (0) = Destroying all of opponent or >/= 33 points difference at time

Modified Win (3) / Modified Loss (1) = 12-32 point difference at time

Draw (2) = Simultaneous kill or <12 point difference at time

Really-close games are scored a draw. This prevents a player up by a few squad points from running and gaining a modified win. Although Draws become more common as a result. Regardless 50% of the match points are awarded to each player because each player fought a very close game. The winning player that fought into a 12 to 33 point difference over his opponent gets a more representative portion of the match points (75%) though the opponent kept the game relatively close and gets a single match point for his efforts.

However, does this option promote fighting for a draw instead of a win? Since you are getting 50% of the match points for the close game will both players within that margin slow-play or run away to preserve those match points instead of succumbing to a modified or full loss?

______

#3: Modified Draw - Are we getting too complicated?

Full Win (4) / Full Loss (0) = Destroying all of opponent OR >/= 33 point difference at time

Modified Win (3)/ Modified loss (1) = 12-32 point difference at time

Draw (2) = Simultaneous kill only

This option slightly breaks the rule of 4-points per game system. It introduces a modified draw. Should opponents find themselves within the modified draw margin it promotes being aggressive to destroy more of your opponents list to earn more match points. The player in the lead cannot slow-play or run way without suffering a hit to their overall match-points. Modified wins/loses are still scored appropriately rewarding the winning player while not punishing the losing player for fighting a relatively close match.

The big difference between the Draw and Modified Draw is that you want to reward players to fought right down to the end and killed each other simultaneously. Both players deserve 50% of that match's points. In the modified draw scenario players did not play to goal of the game (destroy your opponent) well enough and therefore are not awarded the same amount of match points. However, neither player should get 0 points because neither player 'lost' that game.

____

Ultimately the goal of the game is to destroy your opponent's squad, The match points handed out at the end of the match should reflect that. I think option #3 scores the match both with the goal of the game in mind while not punishing players who fought towards that goal, and, in a way, slightly punishing players who could not adequately achieve that goal when time is called.

/Edited for grammar/

I can see merits to lots of things;

A 0/1/2/3/4 break down of scoring gives a nice consistent scoring level and keeps the pack closer together for a more exciting event.

A 0/1/3 System with a draw being awarded if the player can not gain a lead of more than 11 points at time encourages a lot more aggressive play and could rock the meta

No change at all is easy to implement, the meta is varied enough and people are used to the dynamics of building a list to survive (6 A-Wings), trying to table your opponent quickly (BroBots)

Yes! The 0/1/3 system is a lot like my modified draw option above, in terms of promoting aggressive play. Though it inadvertently punishes the rare situation of a simultaneous kill draw, in my opinion.

Does the 0/1/3 system do away with modified wins then? I could see that as an option.

I think I would change it to a 0/1/2/4 system though: Win (4); Simultaneous kill Draw (2); Modified Draw (1); Loss (0)

A 0/1/3 System with a draw being awarded if the player can not gain a lead of more than 11 points at time encourages a lot more aggressive play and could rock the meta

This would have the exact opposite effect of what you intended. Players that are slightly losing would now be encouraged to slow play to get points for a draw instead of a loss (which is currently 0 points for either a full loss or modified loss).

The pace of the game is determined by the slower of the two players, so even if one player would be rewarded for being aggressive, it won't happen because you are essentially forcing the other player to stall.

To some degree, I think that I'm okay with completely arbitrary win conditions (12 points for a full win if the game goes to time), because it's a game and everything is arbitrary. As long as I know the rules and they're enforced, I'll build lists and play with them in mind. With this in mind, I'm not too interested in changing the scoring system right now, because a sub 12 point victory means you didn't do all that well in the first place, so I guess I figure you should be happy that you get any points at all. At that margin of victory, dice probably could have pushed it either way at some point in the game.

edit: "you" in this paragraph is figurative, I'm not referring to specific people's modified wins.

To some degree, I think that I'm okay with completely arbitrary win conditions (12 points for a full win if the game goes to time), because it's a game and everything is arbitrary. As long as I know the rules and they're enforced, I'll build lists and play with them in mind. With this in mind, I'm not too interested in changing the scoring system right now, because a sub 12 point victory means you didn't do all that well in the first place, so I guess I figure you should be happy that you get any points at all. At that margin of victory, dice probably could have pushed it either way at some point in the game.

I have seen a lot of defence of the arbitrary value of 12 points as what the determines if you won "by enough". That's fine, except for the fact as soon as we get to elimination rounds (the important part of a tournament) we suddenly throw it out and all of a sudden 1 MoV point is enough for a win (and in rare cases initiative is enough for a win).

Why are we still using this arbitrary value when we don't use it during playoffs? Why is it more acceptable to not be penalised for winning a close game during playoffs and not during regular play?

I applaud Kris on this episode and his countering of Bobs rant.

I KNOW RIGHT...

Den Evil ED even stepped up and put The NO on 'em both!

Have to side with MJ on baffles. Ain't nobody dropping fcs or advanced sensors off of Corran horn for that silliness.

I think the only solution to scprint is for players to acknowledge that an unfinished game is something that might come back to bite you. There is no tweak to scoring that is both realistic and removes this possible negative play experience. Especially not for small store tourneys. People are BAD at math.

A 0/1/3 System with a draw being awarded if the player can not gain a lead of more than 11 points at time encourages a lot more aggressive play and could rock the meta

This would have the exact opposite effect of what you intended. Players that are slightly losing would now be encouraged to slow play to get points for a draw instead of a loss (which is currently 0 points for either a full loss or modified loss).

The pace of the game is determined by the slower of the two players, so even if one player would be rewarded for being aggressive, it won't happen because you are essentially forcing the other player to stall.

To an extent I agree but if two players are down to one ship and one Player is playing their dial in 10 seconds as they have been planning ahead and thinking of moves whilst the shooting has been happening and the other is taking above 2 minutes each turn their opponent didn't care enough to call a judge over than I don't care enough about about them only drawing.

If you have a recourse open to you for slow play and don't use it than more fool you, I know I have been in situations where I have let things slide because I wanted to be the nice guy that I could have called a judge on but I CHOSE not to. I then give up any right to complain about their actions as I accepted them and chose to do nothing about it.

I reject but my opponent could CHEAT as a counter point.

I am not trying to say that a 0/1/3 is any better or worse than any other system I am just trying to illustrate that I am not adverse to change.

Have to side with MJ on baffles. Ain't nobody dropping fcs or advanced sensors off of Corran horn for that silliness.

Hel-Nah!

Leave him be... he is fine as is!

or