It's hard to be fair when scoring a furball. Awarding kills just encourages people to hang around to see if they are the one who can get in that "kill shot" on something they might otherwise have been leaving alone. I'd say I'm also not a fan of just awarding a "score" when an attack hits; when the overall durability of a ship is measured by its various defenses AND its hull and shield value awarding point on hit makes hull and shield worth far less that good agility and great defensive rolls.

When it comes to me I wonder if just scoring based on the modified attack roll could make the most sense. You say booms are worth 1 point and kabooms are worth 1.5 or 2 points regardless of what the defense does to those later. Dealing cards is easily scored as that is effectively ignoring the defense roll with the attack. This may need some modification for those "cancel dice result" after determining hit/miss attacks but I like this method as it is actually awarding attacking while not penalizing the defensive method used as much as counting actual hits.

You're suggesting awarding Victory Points for Hit and Critical Hit dice results, correct? Even if those hits are canceled, for example with an evade token or evade result? That seems a bit to abstract. I want to reward players for actually doing damage, not just the potential for damage. Also, this system could easily result in a player winning without actually destroying the most enemy ships. That seems unfair.

I do get what you're saying about awarding points and hull/shield points. Awarding a VP for each hit makes agility and defensive way more important than hull/shield. Tanking up and absorbing damage isn't a good strategy because each hit scores someone a point. I was trying to work around that with the second scoring method. What about this version:

• 1 VP for hitting a ship, regardless of total number of hits (only awarded once per round)
• 1 VP for successfully destroying an enemy ship

This encourages attacking, because you get a VP for it. It encourages attacking low hit point ships and high hit point ships at roughly the same amount. And it encourages tactical flying and kill stealing. (I want both aggressive attacking and sneaky kill stealing to be viable strategies.)

On the contrary, I see awarding points for dice results to be MORE fair in furball than simply awarding them for actually getting damage through and by extension destroying ships.

If a player is rolling those good result they are likely to be getting some damage in unless they happen to be that one unlucky person whose attacks always seem to get negated; rolling three good results on Fel only to see them all defensed away makes me think you deserve more credit than the person who only rolls two good results but because of extreme luck (or maybe because that last attack stripped away a bunch of tokens and stuff) gets both through and one shots him. Maybe a high shooting order would let you pick easier targets but it also means you may just wing them and make much easier pickings for someone shooting behind you.

How you score things all depends on what you want for a winner. You could go "last man standing" but that could reward someone who sits around out of sight until swooping in for the win after someone else has done all of the work. I favor rewarding the person who does all the work even if the results of that work aren't always obvious.

Awarding VP for hitting a ship still makes Agility and Evasion far more valuable than hull and shields even if limited to once per round. Agility negates hits so they never happen while the slow high hull/shield ship bleeds points every turn to any attacker.

My question is: Why exactly do you want to keep some sort of "score"? It seems to me that furballs, more than any other format, don't really need a score. Just play and have fun.

Along with that, this is how we've been playing in my local league.

Players bring a "main" ship costing up to 35 points, and a "backup" ship from the same faction costing up to 15 points. Everyone deploys their main ships (only) and fight it out. Whenever you kill a player's ship, the next round that player deploys his backup ship along any edge and is now on your team . Backup ships can be destroyed and redeployed indefinitely. If you kill a player who has killed other players and gained any number of teammates, all those teammates are now on your team (but if you kill one of the teammates, only that player is on your team. You have to kill the team-leader (the one who is still in his main ship) to gain all the teammates).

Play until only one player is still in their main ship, at which point everyone should be on his team.

It's a lot of fun, and nobody ever gets left out.

No need to keep score, but if you really insist, then I would keep it simple. Something like:

• +2 points when you kill somebody's main ship
• +1 point when you kill somebody's backup ship
• -1 point whenever your ship is destroyed

Per hit scored seems a bad method of scoring, as it punishes taking low agility high HP ships even more than the format already does - and this is a format that will be *dominated* by ships that can reliably get focus/evade on top of 3 agility already (they did a similar event at UK nationals with 30+ players. It had to be called after around 6 hours, and all that was left was Jake Farrels and TIE/x7s)

I like the idea by StevenO, though I would add some bonus for killing a ship (like +2 points).

Objective is to roll as much dice as possible and get hit/crit results. This means a knife fight in Range 1 most of the time. And it is less important on who you are shooting to - first of all you need to shoot. This guarantees you a nice furball through the whole game.

Moreover, it will be useful to use upgrades that mess up with opponents attack dice (i.e. Sensor Jammer) as this effectively reduce number of opponents hit results. And maybe there should be some negative points for losing your ship, so it is not simply all upgrades and skills on the offense. I would suggest:

+1 vp / hit or crit result before cancelling by defense dice (hence Accuracy Corrector works fine for scoring 2vp)

+2 vp / ship taken down

-3 vp / losing ship

Normally you will roll 3-5 red dice and get something like 3 hits, hence you need to live to another round if you wish to score.

Give them some small tokens that represent their, I don't know... um, fame? 10 at a start, more to come once one gets scores and gives them back when losing his ship..

quite easy to track on who has the most of tokens and has to be focused down

That would also easily show when we need to end the game: out of tokens!

The best method would be this:

Every players have some tokens (colored cubes from various boardgames would be perfect).

For every damage you deal to a ship (including overkill damages), you hand this many of your tokens to that player.

When a player ship is destroyed, you divide the ship cost by the amount of cubes he received and it gives you how many points each cubes worth. Players score points for their cubes and take them back.

Note: If a player deal damage to his own ship, he doesn't give to himself cubes. This prevent suicide to reduce points given to other players.


This method has the advantage to gives the fair amount of points to player based on their contribution on kills. This also prevent players to hold on until they are sure to get the kill, since every damage grant points.

maybe just give them a point when they are destroyed, the person with the least points at the end of the game wins

The best method would be this:

Every players have some tokens (colored cubes from various boardgames would be perfect).

For every damage you deal to a ship (including overkill damages), you hand this many of your tokens to that player.

When a player ship is destroyed, you divide the ship cost by the amount of cubes he received and it gives you how many points each cubes worth. Players score points for their cubes and take them back.

Note: If a player deal damage to his own ship, he doesn't give to himself cubes. This prevent suicide to reduce points given to other players.

This method has the advantage to gives the fair amount of points to player based on their contribution on kills. This also prevent players to hold on until they are sure to get the kill, since every damage grant points.

As noted: for every damage dealt unfairly penalises playing high HP low agility ships.

Kills are a much better metric.

The best method would be this:

Every players have some tokens (colored cubes from various boardgames would be perfect).

For every damage you deal to a ship (including overkill damages), you hand this many of your tokens to that player.

When a player ship is destroyed, you divide the ship cost by the amount of cubes he received and it gives you how many points each cubes worth. Players score points for their cubes and take them back.

Note: If a player deal damage to his own ship, he doesn't give to himself cubes. This prevent suicide to reduce points given to other players.

This method has the advantage to gives the fair amount of points to player based on their contribution on kills. This also prevent players to hold on until they are sure to get the kill, since every damage grant points.

As noted: for every damage dealt unfairly penalises playing high HP low agility ships.

Kills are a much better metric.

Not really, because ship cost is made to factor this. Else this would mean X-Wing ships are not costed properly and standard play is whatever.

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

Someone definitely gets the issue when it comes to fairness in scoring based on "hits" and dealing damage.

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

Someone definitely gets the issue when it comes to fairness in scoring based on "hits" and dealing damage.

That example makes sense to me. Thanks for that.

Here are my design specifications. My ideal system should:

- Encourage attacking frequently

- Discourage avoiding combat waiting for other people to die

- Encourage staying alive as long as possible

- Discourage letting yourself be killed to refresh single use cards

- The winner is the person who was the most successful at damaging and/or destroying other ships

What would that system look like?

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

You've missed his point entirely. You get a cube (not a point) every time you hit an enemy ship. When that ship is destroyed you count up how many cubes were given out and then divide the ship cost by that number. Thus giving you point value of a cube. Add all the cubes together to figure out how many points you scored.

So Soontir would typically give out 3 cubes. If Mike gets 2 hits and Sam gets 1 hit then Mike will score 35/3 X 2 = 23 points and Sam will score 35/3 X 1 = 12.

Norra would typically give out 9 cubes. If Sally gets 3 hits, Tim gets 5 hits, and Lord Vader gets 1 hit. Sally would score 35/9 X 3 = 12, Tim would score 35/9 X 5 = 19 and Lord Vader would score 35/9 X 1 = 4.

This would mean that on average 3 shots on Norra would be equal to 1 shot on Soontir. Which sounds about right as both are a third of their total health and they are both worth 35 points.

The only downside is the math required. Luckily, everyone has a calculator in their pocket so it wouldn't actually be all that difficult.

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

That example makes sense to me. Thanks for that.

Here are my design specifications. My ideal system should:

- Encourage attacking frequently

- Discourage avoiding combat waiting for other people to die

- Encourage staying alive as long as possible

- Discourage letting yourself be killed to refresh single use cards

- The winner is the person who was the most successful at damaging and/or destroying other ships

What would that system look like?

Awarding points based on attack dice without caring so much about what those dice actually do many of those things. To your points:

Getting points for boom and kaboom results certainly encourage attacking frequently.

Not much point in avoiding combat if the way to get points is simply to make attacks.

The longer you stay alive the more attacks you should be able to make and thus the more points you could acquire.

You've got respawns? It seems to me the counter to those would be a healthy death penalty.

Generally attacking and destroying ships means making attacks that yield boom and kaboom results.

A ship's attack on another should be awarding points based on its performance and not be dependent on the target. With the example ships attacking either of them should net about as many points assuming Fel manages to negate some of those good attack die results which would have hit Norra.

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

You've missed his point entirely. You get a cube (not a point) every time you hit an enemy ship. When that ship is destroyed you count up how many cubes were given out and then divide the ship cost by that number. Thus giving you point value of a cube. Add all the cubes together to figure out how many points you scored.

So Soontir would typically give out 3 cubes. If Mike gets 2 hits and Sam gets 1 hit then Mike will score 35/3 X 2 = 23 points and Sam will score 35/3 X 1 = 12.

Norra would typically give out 9 cubes. If Sally gets 3 hits, Tim gets 5 hits, and Lord Vader gets 1 hit. Sally would score 35/9 X 3 = 12, Tim would score 35/9 X 5 = 19 and Lord Vader would score 35/9 X 1 = 4.

This would mean that on average 3 shots on Norra would be equal to 1 shot on Soontir. Which sounds about right as both are a third of their total health and they are both worth 35 points.

The only downside is the math required. Luckily, everyone has a calculator in their pocket so it wouldn't actually be all that difficult.

That does make a bit more senseyeah. I'm still not sure it's balanced though - but then the format itself isn't, because it's so much harder to focus fire on ships that just don't die unless you can focus fire on them.

I feel like a format like this needs to apply a cost penalty to ships that are able to get focus/evade every round or it's basically never going to work playing anything else.

(Also it needs to ban Lone Wolf)

You're not getting the point.

Consider: Soontir versus Norra. Both cost 35 points.

If NOrra kills Soontir she gets three points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

If Soontir kills Norra he gets 9 points for damage going through, plus whatever for the kill.

This is not fair to Norra, and she's already penalised in a 1v1 format simply by dint of not being a 3 AGI ship with focus and evade every turn.

You've missed his point entirely. You get a cube (not a point) every time you hit an enemy ship. When that ship is destroyed you count up how many cubes were given out and then divide the ship cost by that number. Thus giving you point value of a cube. Add all the cubes together to figure out how many points you scored.

So Soontir would typically give out 3 cubes. If Mike gets 2 hits and Sam gets 1 hit then Mike will score 35/3 X 2 = 23 points and Sam will score 35/3 X 1 = 12.

Norra would typically give out 9 cubes. If Sally gets 3 hits, Tim gets 5 hits, and Lord Vader gets 1 hit. Sally would score 35/9 X 3 = 12, Tim would score 35/9 X 5 = 19 and Lord Vader would score 35/9 X 1 = 4.

This would mean that on average 3 shots on Norra would be equal to 1 shot on Soontir. Which sounds about right as both are a third of their total health and they are both worth 35 points.

The only downside is the math required. Luckily, everyone has a calculator in their pocket so it wouldn't actually be all that difficult.

That does make a bit more senseyeah. I'm still not sure it's balanced though - but then the format itself isn't, because it's so much harder to focus fire on ships that just don't die unless you can focus fire on them.

I feel like a format like this needs to apply a cost penalty to ships that are able to get focus/evade every round or it's basically never going to work playing anything else.

(Also it needs to ban Lone Wolf)

I'm going to be building al the ships myself, then letting my friends pick which they want to fly. I'll make each ship roughly balanced. I'll probably post them on the forum for feedback, too.

And yeah, no Lone Wolf.