33 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Probably should have killed that Academy Pilot. And let's not pretend that the current rules don't heavily favor some lists over others.

Games against TIE swarms tend to go to time because it physically takes a lot of it to plan all the moves, set all the dials, execute all the maneuvers, make all the actions and roll all the dice. It's not quite uncommon to have a TIE left standing especially if the swarm player clearly lost and is in damage control mode, deliberately scattering his ships, flying defensive and simply stalling in order not to lose any more points. But at least right now doing so can in no way grant him victory unless he actually managed to destroy a significant part of the enemy list first. If what you proposed became the rules, pure RNG could result in clear loser becoming the winner. I wouldn't want to play such a game and I'm surprised anyone would consider it a good idea. I remember the shitstorm when final salvo was first introduced. I thought it's overblown because while it favors some lists over others, it's essentially a tie breaker and only matters for games that were very close anyway. But this? I'd become a part of that shitstorm for sure if the game became THAT random.

27 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Fat point fortresses on small bases, particularly regenerating ones. Basically. Miranda, Norra, and Corran, specifically, can easily become functionally impossible to kill if they live past the mid-game (and they're often run alongside Biggs, giving them a good chance of living past the mid-game), and are typically worth well more than even the most expensive and durable non-regen ships (Norra's 42, Corran's 48, Mira's anywhere from the mid 40s up to above 50, etc) and well more than half of any large base in the game (the maximum cost for a single ship being 82ish, counting a ghost with a docked phantom as two ships, which you should), resulting in a boring, frustrating play experience for the person on the losing side trying to preserve MoV whilst having no meaningful chance of actually winning.

Making those same ships give up half points if they were at some point reduced to half health or below, would make them a lot more of an interesting prospect to play against for me.

Yes, when playing vs Norra, Miranda, Corran or Poe it may become effectively impossible to win if you don't have enough firepower left on the table to punch through their defense. That's called victory conditions and yeah, some expensive ships do have them. Usually it's about only having one ship left on the table that's worth less than those ships. What I'd like to point out is:

1. It's not that different from agile fighters such as interceptors, phantoms or PTL protectorates - these ships don't regenerate but their capability to dodge arcs coupled with very good defence makes them effectively impossible to kill in 1on1 combat by a lower PS ship. That's just the way the game rolls - when facing some lists you need to knock out certain ships before you're left outnumbered and outgunned. Or you've basically lost even if technically the game is still on.

2. Regenerators are hardly a massive problem in today's meta. Regenerators thrive in situations where they can expect to take relatively small amounts of damage over long periods of time. These days it's exactly the opposite. Modern X-wing is all about hyper-accurate attacks where ships score 3-4 hits 80% of the time they shoot. It's horribly punishing for regenerators, which is why I don't expect to see Poe winning anything big anytime soon, and while I love Norra, I don't think she's likely to win worlds either. The only regenerator right now that has a significant influence on meta is Miranda. And in her case it's not the regeneration that is the problem, because TLT Miranda and Missile Miranda are Tier 2 at best. The problem is bomber Miranda and the source of that problem is Sabine crew. Trying to fix that problem by nerfing regen is much like solving the jumpmaster problem by nerfing Deadeye. It might look like you found a solution in the short term, but the source of the problem is still there and sooner or later you're just gonna get another list that is equally OP because you didn't really address it.

13 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Once upon a time, it was a very necessary change against fat turrets points fortressing.

Nope. It was never necessary. It was done as a kludge, in lieu of fixing the actual problem, which was -- and remains -- Large primary-weapon turreted ships with Boost.

The problem is that every Large ship since the rule was put into the tournament rules has been presumably playtested using the half-MoV rules. (Which is another reason the "fix" of half-MoV was a bad one, of course.)

23 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nope. It was never necessary. It was done as a kludge, in lieu of fixing the actual problem, which was -- and remains -- Large primary-weapon turreted ships with Boost.

The problem is that every Large ship since the rule was put into the tournament rules has been presumably playtested using the half-MoV rules. (Which is another reason the "fix" of half-MoV was a bad one, of course.)

I can agree that it was perhaps not the best solution to be made, but I very strongly disagree that it wasn't necessary. There was a problem and the half points rule sought to fix it. A change was necessary.

42 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I can agree that it was perhaps not the best solution to be made, but I very strongly disagree that it wasn't necessary. There was a problem and the half points rule sought to fix it. A change was necessary.

I agree, a change was necessary. The half-MoV change was not necessary (and that's what I was responding to).

7 hours ago, asters89 said:

As has been pointed out above, its less about whether half points is still relevant for big ships and more about whether half points would be relevant for all ships.

I think it would be as it changes the dynamic of the late game and will reduce the ability of one player to break off at a certain point and see the game out on points.

No doubt someone will chime in with a specific scenerios where that doesn't work and ask me to explain how it works in edge cases (regen etc), but I think that generally it will an improvement to how it is now if you made the rule half points for all ships at half health.

It wouldn't reduce the ability of one player to break off and win the game on points. It might change WHO is able to break off at a given time, or when you do so. I do agree though that it would be a positive change.

1 hour ago, Derpzilla88 said:

In my personal opinion, it doesn't seem unfair if it were ruling were to be changed to half points for every ship that has 8 or more total health (shields + hull). Still covers all the large-base ships as well as the tanky and regenerating small-base ships.

Why should a 1 agility b-wing that can easily be taken to half health in any given game give up half points, but a 3 agility triple-token (and possibly palp) backed soontir not? Or x7 defenders? The 8 health small ships outside of miranda aren't that tanky usually. It's the lower health higher agility ships that get super tanky and really should give up the half points. Which is why you just do it for all ships instead of artificially trying to limit who does and doesn't give up half points.

1 hour ago, Derpzilla88 said:

I have to disagree with getting half points on all ships. It's incredibly easy to get 2-3 damage on all the 3-5 health ships (mostly because of bombs and turrets). It would make running them pointless because they'd be almost guaranteed half-points for your opponent.

It's just as easy to get 4-5 damage on the 8-9 health ships. They usually have 1 agility. You just...shoot them and they take damage. The low health high agility ships are usually less likely to take damage from normal shots, so I'm fine with it being easier to lose points from bombs. Especially since if your opponent has bombs, it's probably a k-wing (or multiple k-wings) with sabine, so your 3-5 health ship is most likely going to explode anyway, not just give up half points.

46 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nope. It was never necessary. It was done as a kludge, in lieu of fixing the actual problem, which was -- and remains -- Large primary-weapon turreted ships with Boost.

The problem is that every Large ship since the rule was put into the tournament rules has been presumably playtested using the half-MoV rules. (Which is another reason the "fix" of half-MoV was a bad one, of course.)

How do large primary-weapon turreted ships with boost remain the problem? Dash is basically nonexistent in the meta. Fat Han hasn't been a thing in a long time. Rey doesn't use engine usually (or isn't running away with it she has it generally), dengar doesn't usually use engine. Boosting large PWTs running away and arc dodging haven't been a thing for a long time.

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

With the exception of the Lamda, each large ship has two agility. Each small based ship listed has one agility. Upgrade slots unless they aid in survivability don't really matter.

I'd agree with most of this, except the part of upgrade slots. This is largely because large ships tend to have more of them, which makes it easier for them to have combos that make them powerful. The Ghost has two crew, plus a sensor slot. The Falcon has two crew slots, plus the original title for an evade.

The only small-ship that comes remotely close to Fat Han is Miranda. I don't see nearly the amount of complaints about Esage or Wardens, as they can't regenerate. Same with E-Wings and Corran. Norra can be tough in the endgame, but she's an arced ship at PS7 and can be alpha-struck down. We'll see if the Wookiee Gunship or Nym comes close to this, but I honestly doubt it unless the new Salvaged Astromech is amazing.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

How do large primary-weapon turreted ships with boost remain the problem?

Because it's a broken interaction that continues to shape development of the game. As I mentioned above, it led to half-MoV, which now every Large ship has to be designed around even if that Large ship isn't a Boosting PWT. It effectively killed the Lambda (sans Palpatine) and the Firespray, limited the YV-666 to a couple of viable builds, and dropped the Aggressor from "really good" to "mediocre." (Notice anything about the most-affected ships? Yeah ... none of them are PWTs.) It was a terrible, terrible rule, basically made because it was "easy," not because it was "good."

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Just decide the end of every game by final salvo. That's actually quite neat - if you table your opponent you obv win but otherwise it would tend to go against turtling up expensive ships for MOV wins.

Im surprised nobody has thought of it before.

It has definitely been thought of, the problem is that it encourages players with more red dice to forcibly drag the game to time. If you haven't encountered multiple instances of getting slow-played at high level events, consider yourself very lucky...

To the OP, the underlying problem is that the scoring system does a very poor job of deciding who should get the victory condition if a game goes to time. This issue became a public debate around the time that I talked about it on NOVA Squadron Radio two years ago, and nothing has fundamentally changed since then.

There is only one way to correctly address the underlying problem: when a game goes to time, points are awarded for every ship remaining directly proportional to the ship's cost and amount of damage done it has suffered (shields+hull) as a proportion of its total hit points (shields+hull). (No special rules for regen ships are needed - whatever the ship has at the end of the game is what it is -- just treat it like a non regen ship for scoring purposes.) The problem with this approach is that it requires paper, a pen, and a smartphone. The general consensus is that people don't want to go through the hassle of taking an extra 60 seconds to score a game that already went to time, and that some people are incapable of math even with a simple to follow scoring sheet. The counter argument is that if this had been the scoring system from day 1, then nobody would give it a second thought because it would be "normal" and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, any other scoring system can have massive scoring discontinuities based on just +/- one point of damage. One point of damage can still be worth 40 points now, on a "fat small based ship". This does not accurately reflect the actual game state. My argument is that any scoring system, including the current system, that routinely awards a victory to a player that almost certainly would have lost if the game were to continue untimed , is flawed. This can make for some VERY negative play experiences.

The scoring system for games at time is really just behavioral modification. It's like the tax code -- participants in the system rightly try to optimize their outcome based on the Rules As Written. Because slow play is fundamentally unenforceable, the current scoring system directly encourages players who are tactically losing to violate slow play rules, with the goal of either:

a) directly securing a win, or

b) put the winning player in a difficult or impossible situation due to the point scoring discrepancies.

The Negative Play Experience bothers some people more than others. It tends to bother me quite a bit, and is honestly one of the reasons that I have backed away from the competitive game. The game is no longer fun for me when I'm sitting there waiting 5 minutes on the other guy's dials, and now I am forced into sub-optimal tactics just because the clock is going to run out and there's nothing I can do about it. We play three 60 minute rounds at my LGS on Thursday tournament nights, so this occurs pretty routinely.

11 hours ago, Estarriol said:

Everything with seven or more Hull+shields seems reasonable to score half points on as far as I'm concerned.

Curiously, there's no ship with 7 (native) hit points right now. They jump from 6 to 8.

I like to call the small ships with 8 hit points or more "medium ships". They're mostly Rebel: B-Wing, Y-Wing, K-Wing, ARC-170, and the upcoming Auzituck Gunship and Scurrg H-6 Bomber. Scum adds the Mist Hunter (to their own Y-Wings and Scurrg Bombers). Imperial only has the Punisher.

Duplicate post.

14 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Points should be proportional to your health, any damage done should count towards your points killed, and any regenerated health should count as points destroyed.

Too fiddly.

4 hours ago, Jike said:

Of course. A 3-4 health ship is generally cheaper so you'd get fewer points for half health. It's also less likely to be left at half health since it's easier to kill. Is there really a problem with giving someone 6 points for getting a TIE Fighter down to 1 hull?

Having all ships give up points at half health seems inherently fairer than having only a certain subset of ships do so, doesn't it?

There are more expensive ships with low health, like Soontir, Fenn, Vader, Inquisitor, etc. Lower health pool is not always directly proportional to the point cost of a ship.

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

It has definitely been thought of, the problem is that it encourages players with more red dice to forcibly drag the game to time. If you haven't encountered multiple instances of getting slow-played at high level events, consider yourself very lucky...

To the OP, the underlying problem is that the scoring system does a very poor job of deciding who should get the victory condition if a game goes to time. This issue became a public debate around the time that I talked about it on NOVA Squadron Radio two years ago, and nothing has fundamentally changed since then.

There is only one way to correctly address the underlying problem: when a game goes to time, points are awarded for every ship remaining directly proportional to the ship's cost and amount of damage done it has suffered (shields+hull) as a proportion of its total hit points (shields+hull). (No special rules for regen ships are needed - whatever the ship has at the end of the game is what it is -- just treat it like a non regen ship for scoring purposes.) The problem with this approach is that it requires paper, a pen, and a smartphone. The general consensus is that people don't want to go through the hassle of taking an extra 60 seconds to score a game that already went to time, and that some people are incapable of math even with a simple to follow scoring sheet. The counter argument is that if this had been the scoring system from day 1, then nobody would give it a second thought because it would be "normal" and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, any other scoring system can have massive scoring discontinuities based on just +/- one point of damage. One point of damage can still be worth 40 points now, on a "fat small based ship". This does not accurately reflect the actual game state. My argument is that any scoring system, including the current system, that routinely awards a victory to a player that almost certainly would have lost if the game were to continue untimed , is flawed. This can make for some VERY negative play experiences.

The scoring system for games at time is really just behavioral modification. It's like the tax code -- participants in the system rightly try to optimize their outcome based on the Rules As Written. Because slow play is fundamentally unenforceable, the current scoring system directly encourages players who are tactically losing to violate slow play rules, with the goal of either:

a) directly securing a win, or

b) put the winning player in a difficult or impossible situation due to the point scoring discrepancies.

The Negative Play Experience bothers some people more than others. It tends to bother me quite a bit, and is honestly one of the reasons that I have backed away from the competitive game. The game is no longer fun for me when I'm sitting there waiting 5 minutes on the other guy's dials, and now I am forced into sub-optimal tactics just because the clock is going to run out and there's nothing I can do about it. We play three 60 minute rounds at my LGS on Thursday tournament nights, so this occurs pretty routinely.

First off: The idea that every game that went to time would Final Salvo is the most ludicrous idea I've ever heard. Final Salvo is only acceptable because of how rare and situational they are. It solves specific situations that you can account for during the game.

Like you, I've been slow played even during weekly store tournaments. It's the least enforceable thing possible and even if it was, no one would ever get called on it because of how polite everyone is. That's a great aspect of this community, but it goes way too far sometimes. Look at my 13 page thread that merely suggests that you get a game loss for looking at an opponent's dial. The idea that these players may be benefited by slow playing because they'd win the Final Salvo is insane.

You can't reward unenforceable gray area rules breaking that everyone is too polite to say something about. It would kill competitive play.

Secondly: Partial point scoring we're in total agreement on. I think it should be taken one step further however and regen should be addressed. If each damage on a 5 health, 25 point regen ship is worth 5 points, and you've scored 6 damage on it, you get 30 points.

In Imperial Assault, a 3 man Elite Stormtrooper squad is 9 points with each figure being worth 3 points. If your opponent kills off the original 3 Stormtroopers plus an additional 2 that were reinforced with card effects, he will end up scoring 15 points off that 9 cost Stormtrooper Squad. If he just kills off one Stormtrooper, he only gets 3.

Likewise, if I've killed off 6 extra shields your Miranda has pulled out of her ass and she's still at full, I should get 2/3rds of her point cost. Each health is worth points, and you've fed me all this extra health , so I get extra points. Just like how reinforcing your Stormtroopers feeds me extra points when I kill 5 of them instead of only 3.

Thirdly: Partial point scoring can be done ahead of time on the squad sheets. Then all that's needed is a calculator. The objections these people raise aren't actually valid concerns.

Look at how much flak I've gotten for my regen ship points piñata idea. A simple countdown die or scrap of paper is too hard or fiddly or, "too much book keeping".

Two possibilities if that's the case: They're too stupid themselves (which is false), or they can handle it, but they have such a low opinion of the rest of the X-Wing community that they think everyone else is too stupid to do it (also false).

18 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Secondly: Partial point scoring we're in total agreement on. I think it should be taken one step further however and regen should be addressed. If each damage on a 5 health, 25 point regen ship is worth 5 points, and you've scored 6 damage on it, you get 30 points.

In Imperial Assault, a 3 man Elite Stormtrooper squad is 9 points with each figure being worth 3 points. If your opponent kills off the original 3 Stormtroopers plus an additional 2 that were reinforced with card effects, he will end up scoring 15 points off that 9 cost Stormtrooper Squad. If he just kills off one Stormtrooper, he only gets 3.

Likewise, if I've killed off 6 extra shields your Miranda has pulled out of her ass and she's still at full, I should get 2/3rds of her point cost. Each health is worth points, and you've fed me all this extra health you, so I get extra points. Just like how reinforcing your Stormtroopers feeds me extra points when I kill 5 of them instead of only 3.

I haven't playedd IA, but I would assume if you have a 3 man elite stormtrooper squad and 2 figures are killed off, the squad gets weaker for having only 1o f the 3 left (no idea if this is true or not?). Then when you reinforce you get stronger again. In which case it makes perfect sense for me to gain points for killing off troopers.

With a regen miranda, if she's regained 10 shields and you've never gotten her into hull, you've never actually HURT her. Plinking away at shields does nothing to the effectiveness of the ship it's protecting, so why should you get points for it?

21 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Secondly: Partial point scoring we're in total agreement on. I think it should be taken one step further however and regen should be addressed. If each damage on a 5 health, 25 point regen ship is worth 5 points, and you've scored 6 damage on it, you get 30 points.

In Imperial Assault, a 3 man Elite Stormtrooper squad is 9 points with each figure being worth 3 points. If your opponent kills off the original 3 Stormtroopers plus an additional 2 that were reinforced with card effects, he will end up scoring 15 points off that 9 cost Stormtrooper Squad. If he just kills off one Stormtrooper, he only gets 3.

Likewise, if I've killed off 6 extra shields your Miranda has pulled out of her ass and she's still at full, I should get 2/3rds of her point cost. Each health is worth points, and you've fed me all this extra health you, so I get extra points. Just like how reinforcing your Stormtroopers feeds me extra points when I kill 5 of them instead of only 3.

I don't think punishing regen ships like that is helpful. Again, I think the goal of a scoring system [edit: for X-wing ] should be to determine, as accurately as possible, who is really "ahead" in the game and deserves the victory when the clock runs out. If Corran Horn regenerates from 2H0S to 2H3S, then he is legitimately back to his initial turn 0 game state of being full health and hard to kill. Scoring him as such more accurately reflects the actual game state than awarding the other player 60% of his cost even though he's at full.

Other issues:

1. You have to track each damage to each regen ship somehow.
2. You could get wins with well in excess of 200 MoV, and losses with less than 0 MoV (i.e. negative) under your system.
3. Your opponent could have a 100% full health squad, and you could have 1/3 of your ships remaining, and you could be given a win.

#1 is annoying but not the end of the world if it really is the best implementation. But #2 and #3 indicate that the cure is worse than the poison.

Uh...

Tracking when a regenning ship gives up half points is simple:

Have them award half points when first reduced below half their total HP , and if they recover later then they no longer give points unless knocked down to killed.

Lots of games do that when regeneration and scoring are matched together.

Whether or not that would cripple the Rebel faction entirely, as they're so locked into regeneration as their only viable competitive endgame build, is another matter entirely.

15 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

I haven't playedd IA, but I would assume if you have a 3 man elite stormtrooper squad and 2 figures are killed off, the squad gets weaker for having only 1o f the 3 left (no idea if this is true or not?). Then when you reinforce you get stronger again. In which case it makes perfect sense for me to gain points for killing off troopers.

With a regen miranda, if she's regained 10 shields and you've never gotten her into hull, you've never actually HURT her. Plinking away at shields does nothing to the effectiveness of the ship it's protecting, so why should you get points for it?

Fluffwise, sure. Gameplay wise, because I've killed her more than once over. I've done 10 damage, and if each health on her is worth about 5 points, I should get about 50 points for the damage I caused.

14 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I don't think punishing regen ships like that is helpful. Again, I think the goal of a scoring system should be to determine, as accurately as possible, who is really "ahead" in the game and deserves the victory when the clock runs out. If Corran Horn regenerates from 2H0S to 2H3S, then he is legitimately back to his initial turn 0 game state of being full health and hard to kill. Scoring him as such more accurately reflects the actual game state than awarding the other player 60% of his cost even though he's at full.

Other issues:

1. You have to track each damage to each regen ship somehow.
2. You could get wins with well in excess of 200 MoV, and losses with less than 0 MoV (i.e. negative) under your system.
3. Your opponent could have a 100% full health squad, and you could have 1/3 of your ships remaining, and you could be given a win.

#1 is annoying but not the end of the world if it really is the best implementation. But #2 and #3 indicate that the cure is worse than the poison.

1. Countdown die, scrap of paper, etc.

2. You could destroy more than 200 points, but your MoV would top out at 200 in order to prevent abusive boosting. If one players gets 12 points destroyed and the other destroys 300, one player would be given 12 MoV and the other would have maxed out at 200.

3. Considering that the regen player was able to materialize 15 shield upgrades from one 4 point card and you've destroyed them all, I'd say you've earned that win. The other player still had a pristine full health ship, he had the tools to engage and kill you off. Considering that all of the regen ships usually have boost or SLAM with good dials, they have the tools to deal with a situation where they're down on points and need to chase something down in order to get a full win.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I agree, a change was necessary. The half-MoV change was not necessary (and that's what I was responding to).

I don't see the distinction. you can say half-mov was the wrong change, but the need for change it represented was still necessary.

19 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Fluffwise, sure. Gameplay wise, because I've killed her more than once over. I've done 10 damage, and if each health on her is worth about 5 points, I should get about 50 points for the damage I caused.

1. Countdown die, scrap of paper, etc.

2. You could destroy more than 200 points, but your MoV would top out at 200 in order to prevent abusive boosting. If one players gets 12 points destroyed and the other destroys 300, one player would be given 12 MoV and the other would have maxed out at 200.

3. Considering that the regen player was able to materialize 15 shield upgrades from one 4 point card and you've destroyed them all, I'd say you've earned that win. The other player still had a pristine full health ship, he had the tools to engage and kill you off. Considering that all of the regen ships usually have boost or SLAM with good dials, they have the tools to deal with a situation where they're down on points and need to chase something down in order to get a full win.

1. Dice can be knocked over rather easily. And tracking on a piece of paper makes cheating really easy.

3. If you've lost 2/3 of your list and your opponent is at full health, you absolutely deserve the loss. I don['t care if you've done 30 damage if you've done it in so slowly your opponent was able to regain it all back.

2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

1. Dice can be knocked over rather easily. And tracking on a piece of paper makes cheating really easy.

3. If you've lost 2/3 of your list and your opponent is at full health, you absolutely deserve the loss. I don['t care if you've done 30 damage if you've done it in so slowly your opponent was able to regain it all back.

1. This is a non-issue. Players can already cheat now by palming damage cards and putting extra shields on things and such. It's not an issue.

I'm sorry, is expecting the X-Wing community to have the ability to count too much?

3. If your opponent has a 41 point regen ship and you have a 40 point ship left, and your opponent's 9 health ship has taken 10 damage and it's still alive, you're winning that fight and it should be up to him to chase you .

Just now, Turbo Toker said:

1. This is a non-issue. Players can already cheat now by palming damage cards and putting extra shields on things and such. It's not an issue.

I'm sorry, is expecting the X-Wing community to have the ability to count too much?

3. If your opponent has a 41 point regen ship and you have a 40 point ship left, and your opponent's 9 health ship has taken 10 damage and it's still alive, you're winning that fight and it should be up to him to chase you .

If you can't deal damage faster than they can regen, you AREN'T winning the fight.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

If you can't deal damage faster than they can regen, you AREN'T winning the fight.

If they can't kill you off with a ship that has 10 shield upgrades on it, then they aren't winning that fight.

37 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Fluffwise, sure. Gameplay wise, because I've killed her more than once over. I've done 10 damage, and if each health on her is worth about 5 points, I should get about 50 points for the damage I caused.

1. Countdown die, scrap of paper, etc.

2. You could destroy more than 200 points, but your MoV would top out at 200 in order to prevent abusive boosting. If one players gets 12 points destroyed and the other destroys 300, one player would be given 12 MoV and the other would have maxed out at 200.

3. Considering that the regen player was able to materialize 15 shield upgrades from one 4 point card and you've destroyed them all, I'd say you've earned that win. The other player still had a pristine full health ship, he had the tools to engage and kill you off. Considering that all of the regen ships usually have boost or SLAM with good dials, they have the tools to deal with a situation where they're down on points and need to chase something down in order to get a full win.

#1) Technically taking notes is illegal as per the tournament rules. I still don't understand that ruling, but it slightly complicates this point. It's not central to the discussion though, next point.

#2) Total MoV by both players needs to add up to 200, so in your case of 300-12 points scored it should top out at 200 and 0 points scored.

#3) Sounds like you have an axe to grind against regen. Again, the point of a scoring system at time should be to determine, as accurately as possible, who would have ended up winning if the game continued untimed .

It is not clear what the objective of your scoring system is.

5 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

3. If your opponent has a 41 point regen ship and you have a full health 40 point ship left, and your opponent's 9 health ship has one hull left taken 10 damage and it's still alive , you're winning that fight and it should be up to him to chase you .

Fixed that for you.

3 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

#1) Technically taking notes is illegal as per the tournament rules. I still don't understand that ruling, but it slightly complicates this point. It's not central to the discussion though, next point.

#2) Total MoV by both players needs to add up to 200, so in your case of 300-12 points scored it should top out at 200 and 0 points scored.

#3) Sounds like you have an axe to grind against regen. Again, the point of a scoring system at time should be to determine, as accurately as possible, who would have ended up winning if the game continued untimed .

Fixed that for you.

2. Shrug. Either keep it that way or change it such that you would still get MoV for points destroyed .

3. I don't have an axe to grind with regen, I have an axe to grind with all point fortressing, regen or not. I would have an axe to grind solely with regen if you instituted this beautiful partial points scoring system that would fix all point fortresses except for regenerating point fortresses. Which tend to be the best point fortresses already.

3.5 I disagree with that idea, for the simple fact that you're not playing an untimed game. The win conditions are different. The timer is something that's part of the game that one can use towards your advantage (and I'm not talking about slow playing).

Under my system, a Miranda that has taken 10 damage and is still alive has failed to meet the win condition of killing off all enemy ships within the time limit . Since players have failed to do that, it goes to points destroyed. The enemy player wins because he's destroyed more points. And this isn't unfair because the Regen player like had more than enough health and time to chase down the other ship and kill it.

That is unfair because you are fundamentally changing the way points are recorded to make regen a worse strategy. That punishes rebel ships for having been designed wih low agility, high hp, and regen. That adds unneccessary variance to tournament MOVs (one player could face 3 regen lists while another faces none, giving a great difference in potential mov).

In your scenario Miranda shot the enemy 10+ times and didn't die. Her enemy failed to destroy all enemy ships. Then you arbitrarily gave her enemy extra points based on how many times Miranda used her ability.

Why don't we just take it one step further and count how many times a ship was shot? Just because Soontir evaded all my hits doesn't mean I didn't roll them. I should get MOV for that. If that goes to far, then we should at least track the evades for defenders right? I was about to do damage before it was cancelled.