The game is too interactive to use clocks. Every decision in the game is interleaved in real time between the players. Attacking choices, spending actions on offense and defense, etc etc. A clock is not practical. And slow play or playing slowly is still a symptom, not the problem anyway.

I agree that the game is far too interactive to use clocks, but continuing to identify slow play as a symptom of the current scoring system and implying that partial points for everything would "fix" that is misleading.

All competition that has a clock gives the reason for the player or team ahead a reason to delay. It's why football and basketball have play and shot clocks and it's why soccer changed their match scoring to reward more aggressive play. In the case of X-wing, it means unscrupulous players will try to use tactics outside the game to preserve that lead. The scoring system doesn't matter in that regard. It's the clock.

Some games are fundamentally built around having a clock. X-wing is not one of them. A game of X-wing is not "finished" until one side is completely destroyed. However for practical reasons in tournament play you need to have a time limit so you can start the next round, so a timer has to be added.

The fundamental underlying problem is that many times a player who is CLEARLY going to lose if the game does not go to time, can instead be guaranteed a win if the clock runs out. In this case the scoring system has done an exceptionally poor job at judging the outcome of the game. We're not talking about the scenario where a team that is AHEAD wants to run out the clock. We're talking about the scenario that a player in a losing position (one hit point decimator of YT-1300) can stall the clock to get a win.

The current rules actively encourage players to cheat in order to win. In my opinion, having a rule set that encourage players to cheat points to a fundamental flow in the rule set.

There are many people who are using circular reasoning to argue that the rules do not need to be changed.

• The current rules provide a way to determine who is currently ahead on points when a game goes to time.
• However, the mere existence of those rules is insufficient to self-justify their existence.

For example, I'll take some liberty and paraphrase Kris I and's back-and-forth:

• Bob: "The scoring rules are unfair for timed games."
• Kris: "The rules are fair because they apply equally to both players at the start of the game."
• Bob: "But at the end of a game the player who would clearly have lost if the game did not go to time, can instead get a win by stalling out the clock."
• Kris: "Flying away is legal and according to the current rules scoring, that player is ahead on points and so should win."
• Bob: "But that doesn't answer the question of if the current rules are fair or not."
• Kris: "The rules are fair because they are the rules that we play by."
• Sean: "You just have to accept the fact that these are the rules."

Both of the last points are circular reasoning. There are legitimate reasons to want to keep the same rules (avoiding the potential negative play experience of a more complicated scoring system), but self-justification of the current rules is not one of them.

I am not merely coming at this from the perspective of "we have a current rule set, how can it be improved?" I am approaching this from the fundamental game theory and design perspective as if there were no rules set in place yet, and attempting to determine what the best set of rules would be.

I understand your point, but as someone listening, there was more going on in that discussion than simply approaching it from a fundamental game theory. You described a very personal and specific tournament experience and a clear frustration about that experience (of which it sounds like your co-hosts had no prior knowledge of) that seemed to be the focus of that discussion, so they were addressing two things at once (Was the result at your event fair? Could the overall scoring system be improved/What's the best ruleset?).

With respect to your specific experience, I feel your co-hosts made a logical argument. I think, had it been a different segment and not the flight deck and had everyone been better prepared, it would have been a better discussion and what you're saying may have come across more clearly.

MJ:

The fundamental underlying problem is that many times a player who is CLEARLY going to lose if the game does not go to time, can instead be guaranteed a win if the clock runs out. In this case the scoring system has done an exceptionally poor job at judging the outcome of the game. We're not talking about the scenario where a team that is AHEAD wants to run out the clock. We're talking about the scenario that a player in a losing position (one hit point decimator of YT-1300) can stall the clock to get a win.

The current rules actively encourage players to cheat in order to win. In my opinion, having a rule set that encourage players to cheat points to a fundamental flow in the rule set.

Bob, I love ya man, I really do. But I have to disagree greatly with you on this point. First and foremost, it isn't cheating. I think we need to get that out of the way, right away. Adjusting dials or fudging dice rolls, that is cheating. Manipulating the game state in any way to your advantage unnaturally is cheating in my opinion. However flying away to keep points from your opponent in a timed game is NOT cheating. Is it in the theme of the game, no. Is it sporting, maybe not, but it is allowed in that rules of the game. Alex and the other devs of the game have declared flying away a valid TACTIC in the game, and Alex even won a store championship using said TACTIC. So we need to throw this whole idea of flying to beat the clock as cheating right out the window because it simply isn't true.

So when need to start with that fundamental believe that while we BOTH disagree that it is a sporting TACTIC, it is not cheating.

Secondly, I need to preface my next statement by stating that overall, I am perfectly happy with the state of the game's scoring system and how tournaments overall are scored. FFG has done their very best to try to keep this a fair and balanced game and I applaud them and all of their staff for doing a darn fine job at it. I have played in other system that are much, much worse. So what they are doing right now is leaps and bounds over other systems.

Is it perfect, no, by no stretch. But overall, for a VAST majority of tournament games, these corner cases do not effect the overall outcome of events. Does it happen, sure, obviously it has happened to you twice now. But I would argue that huge chunk of the tournaments played, this is not and issue at all. So a complete overhaul of the scoring system to satisfy the rare corner cases seems a bit much, in my honest opinion.

If I were to make any changes, at all, I would drop the modified win and do partial points across the board. Again, is this perfect, no, by no stretch. But the modified win has always felt wrong to me and I still do not understand the difference between and Red Squadron X-Wing and an OMG Shuttle other then base size. Who do I get partial points for one and not the other.

The real trick is that these events need to flow due to time and venue restrictions. We cant have people spending 30 minutes more additionally to figure out points and determine winners by conditions that are not absolute. So the more simple the scoring system, the faster and more easily these events will flow.

I think the bottom line to this conversation (or friendly debate) is that the rules are the rules. If we agree or disagree with them is irrelevant. Going into a game, going into an event, you know the rules as well as your opponent. We need to accept them, or not play in them. To me, this isn't a big deal.

...We're not talking about the scenario where a team that is AHEAD wants to run out the clock. We're talking about the scenario that a player in a losing position (one hit point decimator of YT-1300) can stall the clock to get a win....

This I think where you are sure making a lot of assumptions (incorrect) about the game.

Point 1: Rounds are discrete entities and must be finished even if time is called. So suggesting, well, one would eventually win in a later round is not very convincing to most people. One round later? 2 rounds later? 3? How do you know you would win? There is a chance you would win (Maybe a really good chance) but it is only a chance.

Point 2: If you are ahead in the current scoring system, you are ahead in the scoring. Rationalizing that you should be behind based on undetermined future events is folly. The simple fact is you are not losing but winning. It is like a NFL team who is up by 2 but lost it's star QB late in the 4th. Sure, with another quarter, the other team would probably win.... but that is not how the rules are. Or a team with a chance for the go ahead score on the 1 yard line runs out of time.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/college/on_campus/2015/10/time_runs_out_on_boston_college_in_heartbreaking_defeat

.

I think MJs initial premise was incredibly flawed and misleading. He stated he went "undefeated" and didn't make the cut. Sure, MJ didn't lose any games, but he scored a draw and a modified win. Frankly, it doesn't matter what one's overall record is/was. It only matters how many total tournament points one scores during an event. FFG is over rewarding full wins. I believe they are doing this to encourage aggression and offense on the table. We all know (or should know) that anything less than a full win equates to essentially a loss. So, while MJ didn't technically lose a game, for all practical purposes he went 3-2, not 5-0. Does he deserve to make a cut over those that went 4-1 and earned 20 full tournament points? Doubtful. The scoring system is essentially penalizing a Mod Win, a Draw, and a Loss effectively the same way. It usually only matters how many times you can score 5 points, not how many games you don't lose.

Over rewarding points for full wins does discourage slow playing. It encourages trying to score a full win, no matter the cost. It encourages risking a loss to score the full win. I have played many games where I could have scored a modified victory, or I was worried I would score a modified victory, and desperately took risks to score the full win. Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I wasn't successful, but I recognized that whether I scored a modified win or a loss, they would have the same net effect, so there was plenty of motivation to go for the brass ring and earn the 5 points.

PS, I think the "slow playing" boogieman is way overblown.

To add to what Ed just said (because I think we're coming from some similar places in our gaming background):

1.) FFG's system works remarkably well, and is very good at making as many games in a tournament as fun and interesting as possible.

2.) There are flaws, but much like X-wing's game balance, the flawed space is so much smaller than most of the fairly complex tabletop games that are out there. This may be why Ed, Kris, and myself just don't care that much. We've seen the seedy underbelly of miniature games and the weaknesses in X-wing are just trivial by comparison.

3.) Don't damage a good product trying to clean out the weird little corners (despite the fact that MJ seems to have been screwed by the weird little corners more often than seems just).

It's almost like you had a week to prepare you argument and I had 10 seconds

In my opinion you are coming at it from the wrong angle, which is the point I was ineloquently trying to make.

You are applying the same definition of winning to a timed game as an untamed game, this is a false premise as in your above example the 1 hit point Decimator is winning until the moment it is not winning. It is not losing the game at any point in your example, you can believe that given enough time that it would die but that is irellivent to the argument of wether it is winning or not.

As much as I hate tennis let me bring a comparison from that sport as to how your argument is coming across, to me at least.

Regardless of the surface it is being played on a tennis court is the same size with the same lines marked on it.

Doubles and Singles interact with this court in different ways, both games are still tennis and both are plays on the same court.

You seem to be asking for singles shots to be scored in on the doubles court.

Timed games and untimed games are both still X-Wing and both still played on the same table but they are fundamentally different in how they are scored. The argument of "but if the game had not gone to time is irrelevant" it is a straw man argument along the same lines of if we had been playing double that shout would have been in.

Yes you are correct, it would have been in, but we are playing singles, so suck it up.

The rules DO NOT encourage people to cheat!

Cheater will cheat, regardless of the rules, they will bake dice, come up with funky rolling, deflate footballs, knock ships and yes, even slow play.

The ability to cheat does not make a rules set flawed.

I am not saying that the rules are perfect, I believe I have said on the show before that I do NOT want a perfectly balanced game as that would be dull, chess is not balanced, white always moves first. The search for a perfect ruleset, whilst noble is a quest for the holy grail, it is a forlorn dream that in reality, if you found it would (in my opinion) only detract from the game.

Whilst I see the merit of your proposal to change the scoring system, I am viewing it a pros/cons where you don't seem to be accepting the cons.

PROS

It's better

CONS

It still does not eliminate all corner cases

It does not eliminate cheating (cheaters gona cheat)

It is more complex

More chance of error on entering scoring

Changes the balance of regen even more in to the OP range

For me, the cons out weigh the pros, which is why I argue against it.

Your argument is to dismiss the cons and say that the fact that is is better is enough.

Kris

I am not merely coming at this from the perspective of "we have a current rule set, how can it be improved?" I am approaching this from the fundamental game theory and design perspective as if there were no rules set in place yet, and attempting to determine what the best set of rules would be.

I definitely agree with this approach. I'm of the opinion that scoring should somehow correlate to who would have won if the game came to a conclusion. Currently, the time limit and scoring system promotes sub-optimal play. Also, modified wins and draws are severely punished, yet 200-0 loses are the same as a 101-99 loss.

I think a few of the things mentioned would definitely help. I really like the 4 point system that was talked about earlier, and maybe even getting rid of modified wins.

I don't think full partial scoring is the right answer as some of the super ships like Han, Corran, Soontir on 1hp can easily solo 2 or more opposing ships at full health.

For a recent example, I did play in a 20 person winter kit in early January with the same stress list as MJs. I went 4-1. 3 full wins (2 were 200-0), 1 modified win (won by 10pts) and 1 "modified" loss (lost by 2pts). This got me 3rd place (there was no top 4 cut). My modified win should probably have counted as a draw as we would have been playing for hours without a conclusion. As for my loss, I'm 100% confident that the game state was in a place for me to destroy the rest of my opponents squad. Had the game ended 1 round before or after time was called I would also have been up on points. This game was against a 6 ship rebel swarm, so playing aggressively is not the smartest thing to do. In retrospect, I could have played sub optimally exposing my end game ships to stress and enemy fire just to get some extra points. I don't like how the current scoring system forces you to play differently then you would otherwise in an untimed game.

Over rewarding points for full wins does discourage slow playing. It encourages trying to score a full win, no matter the cost. It encourages risking a loss to score the full win. I have played many games where I could have scored a modified victory, or I was worried I would score a modified victory, and desperately took risks to score the full win. Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I wasn't successful, but I recognized that whether I scored a modified win or a loss, they would have the same net effect, so there was plenty of motivation to go for the brass ring and earn the 5 points.

Precisely a good example, scoring incentives do affect rational decisions.

As for Rey vs Kylo: One thing that people are not understanding and is very possible. Rey was actually a trained jedi, but had her mind wiped, and was dumped on Jakku when she was younger. Then she started to remember and get her powers back. Hence the Mind control over the Storm trooper and then a moment in the saber fight she closes her eyes and her focuses and her training comes back to her, since it is muscle memory and was returning.

I would also like to dispel the fallacy that Bob is the only member of the cast to suffer from the scoring system.

I missed the cut at Nova because I didn't finish off the 2nd IG before Time, I missed the cut at a Store Championship because my 3 TIEs failed to kill a 1 Hull Point Chewie with 3 rounds of fire before time was called. I didn't advance to the final at a Store Championship because time was called when I had a full HP Corren against 4 TIE's that were all damaged.

My first thought after the If, Buts and Maybe's was, how could I have flown better, not they should change the scoring system so that this does not happen again.

Kris

Good Point I think we all have. I went 4-2 and as did 4 other players I ended of 5 and only the top 4 made the cut. Granted it was a basic event, not an SC or RG. They stated before they were cutting to top 4, because of time within the store. But I missed the cut by 8 mov points, and I beat the guy who made it into the top 4.

It happens, I tell myself I should have been 5-1 and been the 1st ranked player.

MJ:

The fundamental underlying problem is that many times a player who is CLEARLY going to lose if the game does not go to time, can instead be guaranteed a win if the clock runs out. In this case the scoring system has done an exceptionally poor job at judging the outcome of the game. We're not talking about the scenario where a team that is AHEAD wants to run out the clock. We're talking about the scenario that a player in a losing position (one hit point decimator of YT-1300) can stall the clock to get a win.

The current rules actively encourage players to cheat in order to win. In my opinion, having a rule set that encourage players to cheat points to a fundamental flow in the rule set.

Bob, I love ya man, I really do. But I have to disagree greatly with you on this point. First and foremost, it isn't cheating. I think we need to get that out of the way, right away. Adjusting dials or fudging dice rolls, that is cheating. Manipulating the game state in any way to your advantage unnaturally is cheating in my opinion. However flying away to keep points from your opponent in a timed game is NOT cheating. Is it in the theme of the game, no. Is it sporting, maybe not, but it is allowed in that rules of the game. Alex and the other devs of the game have declared flying away a valid TACTIC in the game, and Alex even won a store championship using said TACTIC. So we need to throw this whole idea of flying to beat the clock as cheating right out the window because it simply isn't true.

I think everyone agrees that running away is a valid tactic. I certainly do. (Although I apparently didn't at Pittsburgh Regionals, what was I thinking? ) Tactically flying away is not what I am referring to. I am referring specifically to stalling the game by taking a long time to take your actions, select your dial, etc.

Consider the following scenario. This is not a fictitious example. This happened at a Regionals on a top level table in round 5 or 6 out of 6 rounds of Swiss. It affected who made the Top 8 Cut.

• One player has only a couple of hit points left on his VT-49. That's all that is left of the entire squad.
• Incidentally the VT-49 is near the board edge and has very limited maneuver options to stay on the table.
• The other player still has a couple of full or nearly full health ships remaining, and there is absolutely no chance for the VT-49 to win this game if it were untimed, unless the other player rolls about 12-20 red blanks in a row.
• However, because of the scoring system, the VT-49 player is currently ahead on points.
• There are only a few minutes left on the clock before time is called.

The VT-49 player is now in a predicament. The only way that he can win is if the game goes to time. In this scenario he is guaranteed to win. However, he has nowhere to run, and barely any moves that will keep him on the board. Flying away to buy time is not an option.

As per the scoring rules, the only way that he can win is if he intentionally stalls the game. The scoring system is actively encouraging this player to stall the game in order to win. The tournament rules, however, are quite clear on this:

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to

play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling

a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite

combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy

or respect, etc. Collusion* among players to manipulate scoring is expressly

forbidden.

Therefore, the scoring system is actively encouraging the player attempting to win to pursue a course of action that, according to the tournament rules, is cheating.

I don't like it. You don't like it. Nobody likes it. But it is what it is. The current scoring system absolutely does actively encourage players to cheat under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are NOT all that uncommon.

What happened in this case? He took 5 minutes to put his dial down as he was facing the edge of the board. Time got called and he won. There was a picture of him floating around Facebook later in the NYC X-wing group with some notoriety as "the 5 minute dial guy". Should a judge have been called over? Yes. Was a judge called over? No. Either way it is irrelevant - regardless if the judge was called over or not, the fact remains that the scoring system encourages cheating, which is the only reason that it took 5 minutes to place a dial in the first place.

I recognize that running away is a valid tactic, but that is not what I am talking about here. My point stands. You (collectively, not you personally Ed) can argue to diminish the effect that it has, or you can argue that the cure would be worse than the poison, or you can be an FFG fanboy and bury your head in the sand. However the scoring rules can and do encourage cheating. This is an absolutely unavoidable logical conclusion given the current scoring system, tournament rules, and the game mechanics.

(* Unrelated, Sean's decision to coin flip instead of correctly reporting the draw is also expressly prohibited. If this were a premier level event and I were the TO and found out, both players would be getting full losses on the first offense of collusion and ejected on the second offense. Sorry Sean.)

Point 1: A round are discrete entities and must be finished even if time is called. So suggesting, well, one would eventually win in a later round is not very convincing to most people. One round later? 2 rounds later? 3? How do you know you would win? There is a chance you would win (Maybe a really good chance) but it is only a chance.

Counter-point: so if the game is undecided at time, then why should either player get a win? Note: arguing "because the current rules said so" is circular reasoning for defending the current rules.

2.) There are flaws, but much like X-wing's game balance, the flawed space is so much smaller than most of the fairly complex tabletop games that are out there. This may be why Ed, Kris, and myself just don't care that much. We've seen the seedy underbelly of miniature games and the weaknesses in X-wing are just trivial by comparison.

3.) Don't damage a good product trying to clean out the weird little corners (despite the fact that MJ seems to have been screwed by the weird little corners more often than seems just).

This is where personality types comes in. I understand and can appreciate that sentiment. I just don't share it. As a general rule, I'll tend to strive for excellence and not settling for "better than the other guy" or "just barely good enough". I'm competitive. The iPhone would not have been a huge success if Steve Jobs looked at the early designs and said "screw it, it's good enough, ship it." Likewise, I personally don't care if X-wing compares wonderfully against some other steaming pile of poo *cough* Wizkids *cough*. I see that the game has significant balance issues and see how it could be considerably better. This applies to both MathWing, and analyzing the tournament structure and scoring itself. Again, this is just a difference of opinion and perspective. Nobody is "right" or "wrong" here.

Point 2: If you are ahead in the current scoring system, you are ahead in the scoring.

This is circular reasoning: using the existence of the current rule set to defend the existence of the current rule set.

You are applying the same definition of winning to a timed game as an untamed game, this is a false premise as in your above example the 1 hit point Decimator is winning until the moment it is not winning. It is not losing the game at any point in your example, you can believe that given enough time that it would die but that is irellivent to the argument of wether it is winning or not.

This is circular reasoning: using the existence of the current rule set to defend the existence of the current rule set.

Sure, MJ didn't lose any games, but he scored a draw and a modified win. Frankly, it doesn't matter what one's overall record is/was. It only matters how many total tournament points one scores during an event. FFG is over rewarding full wins.

This is circular reasoning: using the existence of the current rule set to defend the existence of the current rule set.

The entire discussion about intentional slow play is a red herring anyway. It doesn't matter, because the same scenario can occur if both players are playing legally. (As happened in my recent round 1 match). The real question to think about and discuss is:

"If you were a game designer, and no scoring and tournament rules existed yet, what rules would you create and why?"

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

Better rules in a vacuum are not necessarily better rules in practice.

Keep chasing your tale of the game could be better, yes it could. Would your idea make it better, in my opinion no.

Kris

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

Ed as for R2D2. Maybe he told R2 sleep mode until Rey returns, then turn on. Of course this agrees with my theory of Rey being mind wiped by luke after being a trained Jedi, dumped on Jakku, being watched by Senka until she was ready to return to Luke.

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

You are arguing in favour of a new set of rules by saying that you would have won a game if that ruleset was in place...

Ed as for R2D2. Maybe he told R2 sleep mode until Rey returns, then turn on. Of course this agrees with my theory of Rey being mind wiped by luke after being a trained Jedi, dumped on Jakku, being watched by Senka until she was ready to return to Luke.

Rey being mind wiped? Whoa. Now that's cold even for a Jedi.

Ed as for R2D2. Maybe he told R2 sleep mode until Rey returns, then turn on. Of course this agrees with my theory of Rey being mind wiped by luke after being a trained Jedi, dumped on Jakku, being watched by Senka until she was ready to return to Luke.

I heard an idea after that I really liked, and that was that Luke sensed Rey near R2D2 and decided to turn him on at that point. Otherwise, R2 being in low power mode make no sense in the story. Think of this this way, what if R2 is awake at the start of the movie. Without BB-8, his portion of the map is useless anyway. He could have been awake the whole time and it would have changed nothing in the story. Sure, they would have had the full map earlier, but they still had to deal with Star Killer Base before they were blown away.

So my point is the R2 being in low power mode did nothing for the story and felt like a very cheap way to conclude the story arc. Oh, this thing you have needed all movie has been here the whole time and for no reason whatsoever, it is here and we will move on.

Ed as for R2D2. Maybe he told R2 sleep mode until Rey returns, then turn on. Of course this agrees with my theory of Rey being mind wiped by luke after being a trained Jedi, dumped on Jakku, being watched by Senka until she was ready to return to Luke.

Rey being mind wiped? Whoa. Now that's cold even for a Jedi.

True! But jedi don't have kids either. Plus it almost follows the same plot as new hope if you think about it. Also, he probably did it so Rey could survive, and because it was probably his last desperate choice to keep his daughter alive.

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

You are arguing in favour of a new set of rules by saying that you would have won a game if that ruleset was in place...

I am not intending to argue that the rules should be changed so that Bob always wins.

I am arguing in favor of a new set of rules because the existing rules lead to what I consider unfair scoring situations, and it also actively encourages players to cheat. I would be in favor of these rules even if it meant I would end up with a loss. My round 3 match vs Lance is a perfect example: due to a massive swing in luck in the next-to-last round (my full health focused bandit got one-shot by the still-stressed IG-88 who was finally able to get one last shot in before it was destroyed), if the match were scored as I proposed, I would have had a modified loss getting only 1 victory point, instead of a modified win getting 3 victory points. I think his Y-wing had 5-6 hit points remaining and my K-wing had 4 hull. Using partial points at time I would have lost by 1-3 MoV. That would have been more fair.

2.) There are flaws, but much like X-wing's game balance, the flawed space is so much smaller than most of the fairly complex tabletop games that are out there. This may be why Ed, Kris, and myself just don't care that much. We've seen the seedy underbelly of miniature games and the weaknesses in X-wing are just trivial by comparison.

3.) Don't damage a good product trying to clean out the weird little corners (despite the fact that MJ seems to have been screwed by the weird little corners more often than seems just).

This is where personality types comes in. I understand and can appreciate that sentiment. I just don't share it. As a general rule, I'll tend to strive for excellence and not settling for "better than the other guy" or "just barely good enough". I'm competitive. The iPhone would not have been a huge success if Steve Jobs looked at the early designs and said "screw it, it's good enough, ship it." Likewise, I personally don't care if X-wing compares wonderfully against some other steaming pile of poo *cough* Wizkids *cough*. I see that the game has significant balance issues and see how it could be considerably better. This applies to both MathWing, and analyzing the tournament structure and scoring itself. Again, this is just a difference of opinion and perspective. Nobody is "right" or "wrong" here.

It's not personality types, or competitiveness, it's recognition of reality. X-wing as a game and tournament system is easily the best miniatures game I've come across for competitive play. You want to implement changes that haven't been tested, and have the potential to cause major problems (that you don't seem to want to address) all to address minor balance issues. You are the only person I have knowingly encountered that considers them significant, let alone significant enough to merit substantial changes in how the rules work. People have already brought up how players can game the system (even cheat by intentional slow playing) using your proposed changes, so what's so great about them? For complex systems, the outcomes of small changes in inputs to the system are not easy to predict. Tournament play for this sort of game is a very complex system, which is why we've seen a modest change about once a year (first MOV, then half MOV for large ships).

So if your system isn't any better than the old system, why make the change? Is it because you've been randomly screwed by the old system? It's not because partial points for games that go to time get you significantly closer to the reality of who would have won an untimed game in a game that is timed.

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

You are arguing in favour of a new set of rules by saying that you would have won a game if that ruleset was in place...

I am not intending to argue that the rules should be changed so that Bob always wins.

I am arguing in favor of a new set of rules because the existing rules lead to what I consider unfair scoring situations, and it also actively encourages players to cheat. I would be in favor of these rules even if it meant I would end up with a loss. My round 3 match vs Lance is a perfect example: due to a massive swing in luck in the next-to-last round (my full health focused bandit got one-shot by the still-stressed IG-88 who was finally able to get one last shot in before it was destroyed), if the match were scored as I proposed, I would have had a modified loss getting only 1 victory point, instead of a modified win getting 3 victory points. I think his Y-wing had 5-6 hit points remaining and my K-wing had 4 hull. Using partial points at time I would have lost by 1-3 MoV. That would have been more fair.

But it's only ever brought up on the show or on the forums when it negatively effects you. Kris even asked you how often you think the current rules have worked in your favour, and you said you couldn't recall an instance.

This is why people get bent out of shape whenever you bring it up.

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

You are arguing in favour of a new set of rules by saying that you would have won a game if that ruleset was in place...

I am not intending to argue that the rules should be changed so that Bob always wins.

I am arguing in favor of a new set of rules because the existing rules lead to what I consider unfair scoring situations, and it also actively encourages players to cheat. I would be in favor of these rules even if it meant I would end up with a loss. My round 3 match vs Lance is a perfect example: due to a massive swing in luck in the next-to-last round (my full health focused bandit got one-shot by the still-stressed IG-88 who was finally able to get one last shot in before it was destroyed), if the match were scored as I proposed, I would have had a modified loss getting only 1 victory point, instead of a modified win getting 3 victory points. I think his Y-wing had 5-6 hit points remaining and my K-wing had 4 hull. Using partial points at time I would have lost by 1-3 MoV. That would have been more fair.

But it's only ever brought up on the show or on the forums when it negatively effects you. Kris even asked you how often you think the current rules have worked in your favour, and you said you couldn't recall an instance.

This is why people get bent out of shape whenever you bring it up.

Exactly. Maybe it wasn't the scoring rules. Maybe the other 4 players just outplayed you that day. I can't recall you once, in this entire discussion, ever conceding that maybe the other 4 players deserved to make the cut ahead of you (I apologize if I missed it). I can't remember an instance where you were just as upset because you made a cut that perhaps you shouldn't have made due to the scoring rules. Either you don't pay attention to those, or you just stay quiet when they happen.

I'm really not sure it's appropriate to call anyone a cheater either. That's a big accusation to be throwing around. Your example above regarding the Regional game with the Decimator is suspect. But, you have no idea what was going through the Decimator pilot's head. Maybe he was intentionally stalling. Maybe he was seriously trying to find a way out of his predicament. Maybe he was trying to out think his opponent's moves. The point is, calling him a cheater, without irrefutable evidence, is more than a bit extreme.

Guys. One thing you don't understand about perfectionists like myself and bob. If it can be fixed we want to fix it. It's like an additiction

My wife often tells me this is not the office, because I try to fix things at home or things that I know can be improved. She tells me Just let it go! To me that is almost as hard as giving up drugs from Addicts.

It has taken me years to change my way of thinking about things, so please give the guy a break he is merely pointing out something which he thinks could be better.