So playing the first Store Championship and I am really getting a feel for the MoV table.

I really did not truly realize how much of a difference in points it takes to move around the table.

Maybe it is the fact that I am playing against big ships bit looking at the table, you only need 130 points to get an 8-2.

It makes for a lot of top bracket match ups i reckon. I find it hard pressed to score a 10-0 as most of the time losing 1 ship will cost more than 50 pts.

I also think winning the objectives gets you into the next bracket

It makes for a lot of top bracket match ups i reckon. I find it hard pressed to score a 10-0 as most of the time losing 1 ship will cost more than 50 pts.

I also think winning the objectives gets you into the next bracket

It seems to me more people will be interested in missions that give you points to try and help themselves out in tourneys.

I feel like it makes a 8-2 average a decent shot at winning a tournament, and making the 8 point bye not an automatic bad thing.

Yeah, that makes sense. It also makes even Pyrrhic victories like 6-4s and 5-5s still possible to win.

Our store Champ had 9-1 8-2 5-5 30 total MOV over 2nd place cause they tied on the MOV chart points

Our store Champ had 9-1 8-2 5-5 30 total MOV over 2nd place cause they tied on the MOV chart points

Ouch, tough loss for second. 30 points over three games is practically nothing. Dem's da breaks.

I feel like it makes a 8-2 average a decent shot at winning a tournament, and making the 8 point bye not an automatic bad thing.

My thought exactly.

So playing the first Store Championship and I am really getting a feel for the MoV table.

I really did not truly realize how much of a difference in points it takes to move around the table.

Maybe it is the fact that I am playing against big ships bit looking at the table, you only need 130 points to get an 8-2.

Yes, but you now need a nearly flawless victory to get a 10-0, and probably need to wipe out several fighters as well.

So playing the first Store Championship and I am really getting a feel for the MoV table.

I really did not truly realize how much of a difference in points it takes to move around the table.

Maybe it is the fact that I am playing against big ships bit looking at the table, you only need 130 points to get an 8-2.

Yes, but you now need a nearly flawless victory to get a 10-0, and probably need to wipe out several fighters as well.

I think this is a good thing, truth be told.

You do not want to set up a tournament such that the winner, especially at larger events, is invariably the guy who "got lucky" with draws all the way through and never hit a counter list to an extreme build. By making it more difficult to get a 10-0, you keep people from exploding out of the distribution purely based on luck.

Now, if someone goes 10-0 three/four/five times in a row, it's probably more than just luck, yes?

The potential swing in the table is also huge.

I played my final game yesterday in a store championship and had a final shot with my last ISD vs my opponents last ISD (he also had 6 bombers left)

His ship had 5 hull points left, it was the last turn, I had a point blank range ISD 1 shot (3 black dice, 2 blue dice, 3 red dice), my opponent has no defense tokens left.

I get 4 hits and he lives. I go from a 10 - 0 win to a 7 - 3 loss on one very unlucky shot.

The potential swing in the table is also huge.

I played my final game yesterday in a store championship and had a final shot with my last ISD vs my opponents last ISD (he also had 6 bombers left)

His ship had 5 hull points left, it was the last turn, I had a point blank range ISD 1 shot (3 black dice, 2 blue dice, 3 red dice), my opponent has no defense tokens left.

I get 4 hits and he lives. I go from a 10 - 0 win to a 7 - 3 loss on one very unlucky shot.

On the reverse side you can go from a 10-0 Victory to an 8-2 with the loss of a single ship

I managed to turn my 6-4 into a 3-7 last event. I'm happy with the scoring overall. Large ships really had an impact on it.

Are other events seeming to be tighter? The 14 player seemed really tight after two rounds.

I managed to turn my 6-4 into a 3-7 last event. I'm happy with the scoring overall. Large ships really had an impact on it.

Are other events seeming to be tighter? The 14 player seemed really tight after two rounds.

I agree, it was surprisingly tight.

I thought after my first match at 6-4 I was going to have a tough slog to make top 8, but a 7-3 next match put me in top 4 contention...I haven't played many tourneys but the new table seems to feel better than the old one.

We had just a twelve player event, but I was happy with the new table as a TO. There were very few ties in tournament points and MoV only mattered in one instance.

There were quite a few scores that were just a few points from going up or down a tier. It definitely makes killing stray squadrons a meaningful act for overall tournament placement.

As an aside to this,

There is merit, I discovered, in tactical isolation and destruction while mitigating loss and fleeing.

Yesterday, running heavy 14 hull point isds, I used the "drive thru-kill-flee" method to good success. Meaning, I planned an alpha strike on one ship with my entire fleet. Once it died, I ran with my heavily damaged but all surviving ships. One heavily upgraded target ship will easily net a hundred points with no negative. That puts you in a win category in the 7-8 range. Very reasonable to go three rounds at 8 points.

This is not to say there is no effort put to other kills if the opportunity presents, but rather a mindful approach to a drive by attack.

http://tabletoptournaments.com.au/event.php?id=76

Those are the round by round results of our last event. As you can seeing it gets pretty tight at the top! It can also swing by a lot too as someone placing in top 3 can easily be knocked down to 6th after the 3rd round.

Yup. Perfect now really almost means perfect. 400-0.

Which I'm finding really near impossible with some builds cuz their fighters will die. you lose 4 fighters, bam, tahts 50 points, 9-1 at best.

I do like it better. I will see how it feels soon as our first local store championship is this Saturday, but it should be very hard to get a 10-0. It seems getting that wide a margin would require you to make no mistakes and your opponent to make many.

The table is pretty balanced now. It is also encouraging smart use of Objectives, which I like.

I like the table. What I find frustrating is the method of pairing during rounds. It will not be uncommon during a tournament for the top 2 players to play during round 2 if they both have big wins in round one.

I would much prefer that pairings for rounds be calculated by total wins vs losses i.e. people who have won 2 games for 0 losses randomly play each other. I think this has a much higher chance of the top players playing during round 3 vice two.

Thoughts?

I think the pairings work out just fine. It matches players exhibiting similar scores and therefore, mainly, similar skill levels. As total points and not wins dictates the overall winner, this seems fair across the board.

Pairing method keeps things close.

It stops cases where:

A- a freak victory allows an otherwise poor player to shoot into an unassailable lead

B- Dominant players don't just stomp and crush their way to a guaranteed tiny group with any chance of being in contention by end of round 2 making round 3 meaningless for anyone else

C- If you dominate round 1 you play someone who also dominated, making round 2 a true "normalizer" for the field yielding the best final pairings

In my experience the top quality players still rise to the top, but if you are a good player that has a bad first match the current pairing method means you don't feel like you may as well pack up your stuff and go home because you have a legit chance of recovering. It also rewards consistency over RNG luck.

To me the concept of MOV overall should encourage most players to play conservatively. Meaning, take out your opponents easiest and most vulnerable ships. Conserve points by not putting ships in positions which are dicey. Who can do the most while losing the least. I've had much better success simply focusing on counting pts and winning rather than trying to put myself in a position to annihilate my foe.