In one of the TCX episodes an intriguing option was presented that any unused points or “bid” would still give the player with the lowest squad total the choice of first player, but the unused points would count as destroyed and be added to the opponents score.

How would this change the game? I know it would remove the “race to the bottom” or “bidding wars” but would it impact the game past the squad building phase?

looking forward to a good discussion.

I personally like the idea of having all unused points automatically count as destroyed as soon as the game is set up. I think it would help give points bidding more bite and make players take a second look at taking large bids when you give your opponent points right off the bat in trade for possibly getting initiative.

This is something I have talked with lot of players about and heard all the usual excuses why it’s a bad idea but once you start looking at it from a new perspective realise that there is something inherently unfair about how those points are protected at the moment.

Consider this, points are not unspent, they have actually been spent on a variable point upgrade that has the potential to give the player a significant advantage in particular matchups. If this were not the best way to spend those points the player would have been spent on something else. Simple.

The real kicker is those points have been spent on the bid but as an opponent you never get a chance to shoot at or kill those points until you wipe your opponent, arbitrarily distorting the half points value on thier last ship.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the points shouldn’t be given up immediately, but as soon as you score half on anyone of the opponents ships the bid points are then considered destroyed. This at least provides a bit of value back to the player with the bid in the unlikely event they wipe their opponent.

TL:DR The 'Bid Point Upgrade' is likely the most impacting and valuable upgrade in your list and your opponent can never kill it if the game goes to time.

Edit:

So to actually answer the OP's question, in the instance of unspent points being automatically destroyed, I think that any list that bids deep would probably consider dumping more of those bid points into upgrades on their endgame ship as a point fortress.

97 point Anakin with triple regen alongside CLT Obi & 2 x Torrents is becoming a popular list these days , coming in at 198 points with Sense on Ani to counter opposing bids.

Why not split the 'bidder points' evenly between the points awarded by each ship in the rest of the list? So for example for a 3 ship list with a 15 point bid each ship is actually worth 5 more points than its upgrades and base cost would say. Spreads the points out and still requires you to actually do damage to win them.

Requires a little bit of maths, but technically no more than usual.

I love the idea of giving away your bid points automatically. Lists that depend heavily on the bid are point-hoarding at time right now anyways. It’s not fun for either player. This change would discourage that.

I think the bid should only come into play if the game goes to time.

If you have taken a bid big to move last you should still have the opportunity to win 200-0, but the onus is on you to take advantage of that.

The hard thing is what if you have two big bidders up against each other, do both players bids go to the other, is it only the difference in the bids etc?

1 hour ago, PartridgeKing said:

Why not split the 'bidder points' evenly between the points awarded by each ship in the rest of the list?

...

Requires a little bit of maths

This is why.

How does a 17 point bid get split between 3 ships? How does a 1 point bid get split between 5 ships? Current X-Wing maths are {1} know how much a ship costs {2} divide by 2, rounding up, for half points. Wicked easy. Bid won't work out so cleanly. While your scheme isn't impossibly hard, it's a good deal harder than the current.

It's also a lot of work for... well... not a lot of benefit.

10 hours ago, Ikka said:

I personally like the idea of having all unused points automatically count as destroyed as soon as the game is set up. I think it would help give points bidding more bite and make players take a second look at taking large bids when you give your opponent points right off the bat in trade for possibly getting initiative.

I actually kind of hate it. I dislike the idea of a list starting the game already losing, and having to climb out of a hole. I prefer both players to start on theoretically even footing. Now, Final Salvo rules give an advantage to one player over another, but it's an advantage in a dice roll : a random event which can go either way.

There's also an issue where the player without the bid has an incentive to avoid engagements. They're already winning, so they don't need to go after the enemy at all. Didn't like 75% of the forum lose their **** about TIE Phantom hovering and Starvipers rolling about in a small area a few months back? All-bid-is-automatically-lost just makes that problem worse, or at least, it strengthens the incentives to do it. So all bid being destroyed doesn't force both sides to engage, it changes who has an incentive to avoid fighting.

//

A middle ground between "all bid protected" and "all bid always lots" would be something where half the bid gets lost upon some condition. Lose half the bid after one ship is destroyed is an option. Or maybe one destroyed or two halved. Other half the bid lost on a 2nd destroyed, or 4 halved, or 1 destroyed 2 halved. Maybe that's too much counting. Lose half the bid after one ship is halved. Lose the second half after a ship is destroyed, or two half-points ships. Gets at the same thing @PartridgeKing was suggesting, but significantly quicker to count.

At least under such a scheme, an opposing player has to go out and earn the bid points from an opponent . I don't like someone being handed the points for free.

//

That all said, my preferred "solution" is to nerf the power of the bid for determining first player. I don't really have an issue with bids, and I like the general concept of bidding, but I think it's too powerful and too all-or-nothing. What I'd do is have bid points buy dice for an "opening salvo" where players would roll a few dice (typically between 3-8), and count hits/crits to determine who gets to pick first player.

I'd follow a system something like this: Players start with 3 dice. Getting a 4th die is 1 point. Getting a 5th die is 2 points more than that, so 3 total. Getting a 6th die costs 4 points more than that, or 7 total. Getting a 7th die costs 8 points more than that, or 15 total. An 8th die would cost a total of 31, 16 more than before. Maybe hard-cap it there, maybe leave the option of a 63 point bid open...

So the costs of each extra die go up exponentially, while the don't increase nearly as much. Being up 1 die over the opponent gives you around a 2/3 chance to pick first player. Being up 2 dice gives about a 75-80% chance. As such, there's very little incentive to bid, since it doesn't get you that much. It might seem like, "Oh, I can get a 4-dice opening salvo instead of a 3-dice for only 1 point." But the 3-dice player will win about 31% of the time against a 4-dice player.

The other thing it does is that it means that each breakpoint matters. Not always a lot, but there's always a non-zero benefit to hitting another breakpoint. 5 dice vs 7 dice is better than 3 dice vs 7 dice. Too often, a 1-point difference in the bid can wipe out all of it. That sort of all-or-nothing leads to the death spiral towards massive bids.

Downsides: {1} list tetris around the breakpoint values {2} it's a lot less quick than just comparing total bids.

Bidding should be treated as the upgrade that it is, not just as wasted/unused points, essentially.

My idea would be that you don't score the points for the bid until something is at least half points, but as soon as something is half points, the bid points also count as lost.

Bidding shouldn't prevent you 200-0ing your opponent, but it should stop you fortressing an extra howevermany points on your best ship forever.

12 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

How does a 17 point bid get split between 3 ships? How does a 1 point bid get split between 5 ships?

I'll admit I saw that one coming, but decided I'd leave it for someone with a better head for interesting maths to get to

Simplest version would be 'rounding down' (or up to taste I guess) both lead to there being break points to gaming the system, but that sort of already exists in ship health etc. I think when it's the 1-4 point difference between what was bid and what is available, yes that can be all the difference between win and loss but its no longer the problem of a bid that's in the order of significant fractions of ships. Or to put a number on it 10+

So in your first example if each ship is granting an additional 5 or 6 points (with that leading to the available points being 198 or 201) and in your second it's 0 or 1 (leading to the slightly more egregious 195 to 205 swing). In both instances if the list gets completely destroyed then it resets to 200pts awarded.

Do completely acknowledge your point though

Personally, I'd like the 'bid' to automatically be added to your opponent's score if the game doesn't end in a clear victory (one list entirely destroyed).

10 hours ago, Mace Windu said:

I'm firmly of the opinion that the points shouldn’t be given up immediately, but as soon as you score half on anyone of the opponents ships the bid points are then considered destroyed. This at least provides a bit of value back to the player with the bid in the unlikely event they wipe their opponent.

This seems the most fair and easy to implement of the options already presented. Next to this would be something where you get half the bid, round up, the first time this happens, and the rest the next time it does.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

There's also an issue where the player without the bid has an incentive to avoid engagements. They're already winning, so they don't need to go after the enemy at all. Didn't like 75% of the forum lose their **** about TIE Phantom hovering and Starvipers rolling about in a small area a few months back? All-bid-is-automatically-lost just makes that problem worse, or at least, it strengthens the incentives to do it. So all bid being destroyed doesn't force both sides to engage, it changes who has an incentive to avoid fighting.

Because not every list is built to avoid fighting?

If you're bidding you want to move last, so they can choose when and how to engage/poke?

You're thinking to small. Currently you bid to avoid engagements. But you have control over that. If you give up the points, you can't avoid engagements the same. Also there's no guarantee that your opponents list can avoid engagements.

That said, the bid only lost on time seems like a solid solution. Let's people table 200-0 still, and you can preserve those points by engaging. But forces the bidder, who has an advantage on forcing/running from fights, to actually fight.

I think the problem with the bid is that it lets you choose who goes first AND is essential added to the point total of the last ship on the table (no matter what ship). Both of these favor the kill something and run concept.

The ideas that I saw are:

1. Bid points go to the opponent at the start of the match.

2. Bid goes to the opponent if time is called without one side being destroyed.

3. Use bid points to purchase salvo dice. (I don’t see how this one helps the point fortresses though.)

4. Bid is gained at some point during the match.

The last one has a lot of options but whatever is chosen needs to be easy to calculate and remember. Perhaps the opponent chooses a ship to add the entire bid to, scoring half points and full points for the ship + bid normally.

I don't really feel like it's a mechanical problem. 90% of the lists I see with bids over 10pt contain something undercosted by a similar amount. An adjustment would sit them a normal-sized, 'fair' bid, leaving them open to all the squads that run at that level and making it the gamble it should be.

If your list requires moving last to do well, but you're never guaranteed to consistently get that, it levels the field considerably. Spending the points instead steers you clear of the gamble and becomes more attractive.

One possible exception is Fenn and Guri, where nothing seems too cheap. Since the list requires you to fly it like a total boss, I'm not at all troubled by this outlier.

Super Ani/Obi, I don't know. Haven't seen it with my own eyes to judge. But Obi is definitely undercosted atm.

Previous balancing has done a good job of weeding out extreme bids, but obviously some remain to be dealt with.

Just now, Cuz05 said:

I don't really feel like it's a mechanical problem. 90% of the lists I see with bids over 10pt contain something undercosted by a similar amount. An adjustment would sit them a normal-sized, 'fair' bid, leaving them open to all the squads that run at that level and making it the gamble it should be.

If the bids are this deep, the ships are too cheap!

Just now, theBitterFig said:

If the bids are this deep, the ships are too cheap!

I also very much like your 1st Salvo mechanic, it must be said....

13 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

If the bids are this deep, the ships are too cheap!

The only example I see of this kind of bid are imperial aces. I wouldn’t call Vader, Soontir, duchess or the inquisitor undercosted, it’s just when they fit together they leave a bid. If you raise the cost on them, the aces archetype stops being good because it relies on initiative and you destroy lists that may see them individually with different wingmen.

oh, and PhillGC’s Guri/Fenn, but no one’s going to argue those guys are undercosted.