20 minutes into the match, block off range 1 from each player's side of the board (whole board gets smaller by 8" or so). 40 minutes in, block off range 1 from the sides. 60 minutes in, range 1 again from all sides. Now you have a smaller area to run that's filled with asteroids. If your ship is in the blocked off area when time to block it happens you have 1 move to get back on the board, then regular rules for edge of the board apply - ship destroyed.

Running is part of the game, your opponent has to be able to catch you. I think it only gets detrimental when people also slow play. You know what running looks like, engage or don't. I've run in tournaments before, but my dials were also down long before my opponents. Think of it like the final 2 minutes in basketball.

Taking damage is expected, we have 0 and 1 agility ships designed to be hit. These ships dont need a nerf. Having a different game strategy and lists for timed tournament play is fine.

I'm always amazed by players who think it's my obligation to fly my ships directly into their firing arcs so they can shoot me.

We wouldn't have ships with 5-speed maneuvers if FFG didn't want running away to be a thing.

20 minutes into the match, block off range 1 from each player's side of the board (whole board gets smaller by 8" or so). 40 minutes in, block off range 1 from the sides. 60 minutes in, range 1 again from all sides. Now you have a smaller area to run that's filled with asteroids. If your ship is in the blocked off area when time to block it happens you have 1 move to get back on the board, then regular rules for edge of the board apply - ship destroyed.

Running is part of the game, your opponent has to be able to catch you. I think it only gets detrimental when people also slow play. You know what running looks like, engage or don't. I've run in tournaments before, but my dials were also down long before my opponents. Think of it like the final 2 minutes in basketball.

This idea of shrinking the board is awesome, but maybe just shrink it once by R2 at 60 minutes? That way the game changes at the end, but has enough time to matter and also shrinks the board significantly enough that the end game would be much more dramatic imho.

I'm definitely giving it a try, thanks!

I'm always amazed by players who think it's my obligation to fly my ships directly into their firing arcs so they can shoot me.

I can get the frustration of having someone run away when you know you could likely beat them if they attacked, but because they're ahead on points they'll win. But the problem is, there's nothing unsporting let alone rule breaking about playing out the clock.

What it really comes down to, is someone getting upset because the other person won't play their game, which is always the worse possible thing you can do. You never want to play the other guys game.

Again I get it's frustrating, but that doesn't mean the game needs to be changed or running to preserve an advantage is somehow wrong. The board isn't that big and there's only so much room to run... If you can't hunt down the last ship then you really didn't deserve to win.

Because that's what it come down to... If the only way you can win is for the other guy to do what you want, to play into your strength then you could've played better.

Every ships worth should = total points / hull + shields (rounded down, making that last hull worth more)

Dash at 58pts is worth 5.8pts or 5pts per damage done.

Soontir at 35pts is worth 11.6pts or 11pts per damage done

x7 juke Vessery at 35pts is worth 5.8 or 5pts per dmg done.

Lothal at 39pts is worth 2.4pts or 2pts per damage done

So a Soontir with 2dmg is not worth 35pts, he is worth 13pts left alive. While a x7 juke Vessery with 3 hull left is 20pts (5pts per dmg). So Vessery is currently in the lead in this match (its not a draw at 35pts) and Soontir needs at least 2 more dmg on Vessery.

This would dramatically lower any type of Final Salvo, as mirror matches could end with Soontir #1 at 1dmg and Soontir #2 at 2dmg.

It's simple first grade math that would only add an extra 30 seconds at the end of each round. Getting 1 dmg on a 35pt Soontir hiding behind Palp should count as something, as it was probably harder to get that 1 dmg as it is to get 6 shields on Lothal.

I have been saying for years now that if a game goes to time, you need to use partial points for every hull or shield damage for each ship. Slow play is fundamentally unenforceable, and one player can play slowly to force the other to HAVE to play with sub-optimal tactics just to try and close out the game in time. It is the only way to have a fair endgame, especially with ships like 35+ point x7 Defenders that are cockroaches and refuse to completely die at time. The only legitimate downside:

• The math would require using the calculator on your cell phone. To be fair it is slightly more complicated than first grade math, although certainly before high school.

Arguments against partial points that don't actually hold water:

• It's not the way it is right now.
• Low agility ships would bleed points more consistently.

Responses:

• Irrelevant when discussing what the optimal future solution should be.
• This is actually a very good thing. It would have prevented the Gen-Con runner up from abusing the clock to gain an artificial advantage. Related: for the last two Regionals in Massachusetts, the winners at high level tables were determined by players slow-playing low agility ships at time. (2015: 4-1 table in round 6. 2016: Top 4 table). I'm sure it was happening elsewhere through the tournament.

This is definitely not a problem, and should not be addressed. I rather see it as a viable strategy of the game, one which should be employed as necessary.

If you don't like it, find a way to plan and execute your ships better to stop them from running.

If you can't do so, then your adversary has correctly chosen the proper strategy to win.

Respectfully, it sounds like you have not encountered some of the matchup problems that a lack of partial points creates. The 3-time World Champion, Paul Heaver, is on record as saying that his 2016 Worlds list vs Palp Defenders has only one mathematically possible path to victory due to a lack of partial points. Specifically: he is flying Asajj and 2 Y-wings.

• That match will always go to time.
• You can't kill both Defenders.
• You have to kill the shuttle, and one defender. That's 64 or 65 points.
• Both Y-wings are going to die. That's 50 points.
• The end-game victory condition: one Defender is left, and Asajj is NOT at half health.

This is the only way Paul can win this game. It doesn't matter if the Defender is at full health or 1 hull, the only thing that matters is Asajj can't be at half points.

It is also worth noting that Paul was knocked out of the elimination rounds specifically because the victory conditions were based entirely around a lack of partial point scoring. Both players were directly playing the clock... for 40 minutes.

Reasonable arguments can be made that a lack of partial points is still OK, or at least better than the alternative. It is a complex issue. But arguing that it does not impact the game and is not a problem is simply wrong.

I really like the idea of MOV taking not only ships destroyed in to account, but also damage done. But, as mentioned, there is a clear and fair counterpoint that a ship isn't ever really 1/3rd or even 7/8th dead (although large bases seem to be able to be half dead haha)., so it should be counted as full until it drops.

The counter-counter point: the squad is not really ever 1/3 or 7/8 dead if 1/3 of 7/8 of your ships are off the board, so you haven't lost until your opponent has killed every single ship.

[edit]: To clarify, I am only suggesting using partial points if a game goes to time and does not complete. For most games one squad is completely destroyed and therefore there is an undisputed winner, so for those games it is fine to just keep the MoV math simple.

I'm always amazed by players who think it's my obligation to fly my ships directly into their firing arcs so they can shoot me.

I can get the frustration of having someone run away when you know you could likely beat them if they attacked, but because they're ahead on points they'll win. But the problem is, there's nothing unsporting let alone rule breaking about playing out the clock.

What it really comes down to, is someone getting upset because the other person won't play their game, which is always the worse possible thing you can do. You never want to play the other guys game.

Again I get it's frustrating, but that doesn't mean the game needs to be changed or running to preserve an advantage is somehow wrong. The board isn't that big and there's only so much room to run... If you can't hunt down the last ship then you really didn't deserve to win.

Because that's what it come down to... If the only way you can win is for the other guy to do what you want, to play into your strength then you could've played better.

I agree with everything you posted. Articulate as always and nothing too loony. However, I hate it when games go to time. I see it as inevitable due to the sheer amount of upgrade combinations available. Keeping track of all that stuff is completely different (and more time consuming) than the time when games rarely went to 60 minutes in tournaments. I personally liked the shorter games and decisive ending much more than the way things currently stand. So much more thematic imo, and it leaves little to no room for uncertainty as to whom the winner is. For my money, I'd rather see an exciting and dramatic match at the end game over hide and go seek. Now, I agree that if you can't catch him then his strategy worked, but that can also be said of a forced confrontation. Develop a new strategy, knowing you'll be engaged until someone is defeated. I am not convinced that the game would suffer if running away were removed.

The people against running away are essentially arguing there is no difference between running away and stalling for time. A rule already exists to address that issue: unsportsmanlike conduct. If you think a player is stalling rather than playing the game, call for a judge.

Rule changes should improve gameplay, not constrict or complicate it. Most of the suggested rule changes in this thread do not hold up to that test.

The people against running away are essentially arguing there is no difference between running away and stalling for time. A rule already exists to address that issue: unsportsmanlike conduct. If you think a player is stalling rather than playing the game, call for a judge.

Slow play is fundamentally unenforceable, and is not even the root of the problem. Slow play merely exposes the underlying problem with the scoring system itself.

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

.........

The game has become nicely complicated with all the card interactions, adding a component to rescore custom lists at the end of the match might not be the best way to go. I tend to play most of my matches until conclusion or someone concedes. Only in tournaments does playing the clock become a component... as it is in most sporting'esk events.

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

While you're right that doesn't happen in baseball or golf... Neither of them have time limits so they don't really apply. I get the point that not every pro sport game has someone running down the clock. However in any sport or game in which a clock is involved, managing the clock is part of the game.

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

Well the comment was any pro sport.

Baseball only continues in the event of a tie. I have seen winning teams play conservatively... until the game played out. But neither game has a time component so how is the comparison apples to apples at all?

Nor was my comment an attack at dissenting opinions, simply that I feel you have to factor the clock into playing this and other games. I mostly find it stressful and annoying when the player with one ship left on the board takes more time to setup than I do with 2 or more ships - aka slow play - but don't agree that playing with a time limit is a bad thing. We don't have play clocks and penalties in X-wing and I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may if something unsportsmanlike such as slow play becomes endemic (which is how other sports addressed this problem).

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

While you're right that doesn't happen in baseball or golf... Neither of them have time limits so they don't really apply. I get the point that not every pro sport game has someone running down the clock. However in any sport or game in which a clock is involved, managing the clock is part of the game.

Exactly. It's like a football team saying, "Hey, why aren't you throwing the ball so we can get it back sooner and try to win the game?"

I'm going to indicate my bias on this which may cause you to invalidate my opinion:

1. Playing in a Regionals tournament this year. My opponent says to me, "I can't win at this point." and then proceeds to run away, playing out the clock so he can win on points.

2. Most of my background in gaming prior to X-wing was with a CCG where a big part of the culture was to concede when you knew you'd lost. For my opponent to utter the quote above and not concede was upsetting

So, I think I 'get' where the OP is coming from. To lose in such a manner is incredibly frustrating, as it's your understanding that X-Wing is about shooting at each other, not completely disengaging. However, as long as the clock is a factor in the game (and it must be, at tournaments) there has to be a way to call games that don't result in complete destruction of one side. Calculating MOV is already not fun, and more math at the end of matches is just going to irk more players and draw out tournament times more.

The only thing I've seen that piques my interest is making some loophole for you to concede that won't completely **** on your MOV. I think it could save time in tournaments and provide an incentive both to graciously quit and a disincentive from irritating your opponent.

i'd rather spend the timer chasing someone than accept a concede that basically does nothing but end the timer now, i.e. less points for me and not as bad of a loss for him.

Not everyone that flees like that is doing it to ensure you dont get 100pts. If im outmatched with my remaining ship, i'll start retreating but im constantly looking for ways to sneak shots in. Ive won a few unfavorable matches that way, because they expected me to keep running and i pulled a K-turn and ended up on their side or something.

I dont give up. I may look like im running to preserve points, but im not. Im running to prevent dice trades because i cant take another one, or you can take more than i can.

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

While you're right that doesn't happen in baseball or golf... Neither of them have time limits so they don't really apply. I get the point that not every pro sport game has someone running down the clock. However in any sport or game in which a clock is involved, managing the clock is part of the game.

There are still tactics that are in the same vein: for example a bunt in baseball or putting in a 'watchman' in cricket. I'm working on something similar in golf... maybe it doesn't apply here though as golf is not really player v. player in the same way. It more player v. their own average score (handicap).

These arguments against slow play are really all just good reasons why Corran Horn with R2-D2 should be completely removed from the game of X-wing. Corran Horn is the ultimate MOV TROLL. Perhaps we should build a significant negative stigma to using the black magic of Corran Horn. U-boats were being pushed from the meta even before the nerf because of the intense negative stigma that was being built up by the moral inflections within the X-wing ecosystem.

Edit... What the hell happened to the paragraphs I wrote?

Running to preserve a win late game. How would you approch fixing this?

Right... Trying again:

Long story short, If your opponent runs away, hunt his ship down and finish it off. If you can't then tough, he beat you fair and square.

I play Rugby, in Competetive Rugby if a team is beating you then it's expected they'll keep it tight and play conservatively towards the end of the game to maintain their lead. I see no reason why X-Wing should be different in terms of opponents playing to their strengths to win games.

Will you also complain if they don't line up and fly directly into your cannons?

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

Well the comment was any pro sport.

Baseball only continues in the event of a tie. I have seen winning teams play conservatively... until the game played out. But neither game has a time component so how is the comparison apples to apples at all?

The triggering end-game condition in football, basketball, and many other sports, is that the clock runs out.

The triggering end-game condition in X-wing is that one side's ships are completely removed from the board. The time limit is merely a practical necessity in a tournament setting. There has to be some scoring mechanism so games can't take 2 hours in a 100+ person event. However the discussion about what that scoring mechanism should be or could be, is entirely different than what the scoring system currently is.

You have essentially argued that the rules should not change because there are already rules in place. The discussion however, is about what the scoring system could be or should be, not what it currently is.

However the discussion about what that scoring mechanism should be or could be, is entirely different than what the scoring system currently is.

Actually the discussion is about how the current system is broken and as such pointing out that there isn't actually anything wrong with the current system is a completely valid statement to make.

I'd agree that saying something shouldn't change simply because it's how it works now, is not a good argument. But I'll also say that the claim it needs to change because someone can use it to their advantage may not be valid reason for it to change.

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

Well the comment was any pro sport.

Baseball only continues in the event of a tie. I have seen winning teams play conservatively... until the game played out. But neither game has a time component so how is the comparison apples to apples at all?

The triggering end-game condition in football, basketball, and many other sports, is that the clock runs out.

The triggering end-game condition in X-wing is that one side's ships are completely removed from the board. The time limit is merely a practical necessity in a tournament setting. There has to be some scoring mechanism so games can't take 2 hours in a 100+ person event. However the discussion about what that scoring mechanism should be or could be, is entirely different than what the scoring system currently is.

You have essentially argued that the rules should not change because there are already rules in place. The discussion however, is about what the scoring system could be or should be, not what it currently is.

Well you are partially ignoring the last paragraph in my last post where I purposely did not offer a change, but did describe how other games addressed slow play (play or shot clocks). I would argue that in tournament rules, the time limit is also a valid end-game condition. Not one that best fits a game where elimination is concerned, true, but still valid. The scoring method that already exists is one that I have listened to your well thought comments on (here and on podcasts) regarding MOV and points destroyed (and previously wins vs partial wins etc).

I am not arguing that further changes to the game to make the experience more enjoyable are not warranted, but I am pointing out that Time is a valid component to this and other games (mostly in response to other posters who think conservative or safe play are poor sportsmanship). I did also call into question that adding a variable calculation to be performed if a game goes to time between players attempting to post outcome and clean up the play area for next pairing in a limited amount of time, would be an ideal fix. I don't have a better solution than what you came up with (which doesn't address slow play) other than to suggest a form of play clock, something I would rather not see.

I'm reminded of that thread where a Y-Wing player complained about losing to an A-Wing player who refused to engage his turrets in the pre-Autothrusters era.

I'm 100% on board with players trying to run out the clock, as long as they're not slow-playing the dials. It's up to me to find a way to intercept them. If I can't, then I look back at how I played the game and try to figure out where I could have avoided putting myself in a situation for that to happen.

Running to preserve a win late game. How would you approch fixing this?

Right... Trying again:

Long story short, If your opponent runs away, hunt his ship down and finish it off. If you can't then tough, he beat you fair and square.

Again, slow play is fundamentally unenforceable.

It is hard to chase down your opponent when he has 3 hit points left on his Decimator, and he takes 5 minutes to place his dial, so he ends up winning when time expires. This happened at Masachusetts Regionals 2015 on a table that decided who would make the cut. (not the aforementioned player)

Please recognize that the mentality you propose directly empowers players such as the Gen-Con runner-up to play low AGI ships, and then take a LONG time to play his dials. You can't kill his ships if the game ends 10 rounds early. Therefore, you score nothing, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's much more subtle than the 3 HP decimator example above, but it affects the game at least as much.

A similar scenario occurred in 2016 Massachusetts Regionals, with the 2016 Gen-Con runner up: he could have been justifiably given a game loss in his Top 4 for slow play, but instead went on to win the tournament. There are other local tournaments with this player that have played out with extraordinary similarity.

We are well beyond the point where you can reasonably use the argument "the scoring system is OK because you can always call a judge over on slow play". I don't think you can make this argument anymore to high level players without getting laughed out of the room. If slow play could have been enforced, then it would have been enforced at any number of tournaments that this player played in. Slow play is an incredibly large grey area. In the overwhelming majority of real world scenarios, it is impossible to tell if someone is intentionally stalling the clock vs merely playing slowly, even when the slower player is gaining an advantage by playing slowly.

I don't want to get into a discussion of this particular player, but it provides a perfect concrete example of specifically why the scoring rules at time are fundamentally broken. Perhaps he does not always intend to drag out the clock. He could just play slowly. However it is incontrovertible that this has given him an advantage that would not exist in an untimed game, or if partial point scoring were used.

Running to preserve a win late game. How would you approch fixing this?

Right... Trying again:

Long story short, If your opponent runs away, hunt his ship down and finish it off. If you can't then tough, he beat you fair and square.

Again, slow play is fundamentally unenforceable.

It is hard to chase down your opponent when he has 3 hit points left on his Decimator, and he takes 5 minutes to place his dial,

Not what I'm talking about.

Let me rephrase: Running away to save HP is perfectly acceptable to me.

Taking forever to place dials is not.

Alles Klar?