22 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Well, now there's essentially no way to draw.

But depending on the rules of game, it's not always enough to say "you can't do it." MTG typically had a best 2 out of 3 format, and a 1-1 that goes to time is a draw, then it gets put on the judges to decide if it was intentional or not. That becomes a mediocre solution to a bad problem. It isn't always enough to simply declare a ban on it.

It's not about saying that it is against the rules (though a statement in the tournament regulations that says it is against the spirit and letter of the rules to collude to intentionally draw a game will cover 99.9% of cases.)

It is about specifically updating the tournament regulations with rules that literally prevent intentional draws.

Main ways to do it

1. Both players purposefully fly their ships off the board in the opening turns
2. Both players castle for 75 minutes and do not engage
3. Both players circle the board, or k-turn up and down one board edge.

Solutions that I came up with with 5 minutes thought, so doubtless imperfect:

1. If a game goes to time and no points have been destroyed on either side, then the game shall be considered to be an intentional draw
2. If a game is declared an intentional draw, a game loss is awarded to both players.
3. Update to set up rules - during deployment phase, players are not permitted to place their ships in such a way that they will flee in the first turn
4. Added rules on fleeing the battlefield:
   1. A ship is not able to flee the battlefield before an combat has occurred. Once a combat has occurred, ships may flee the battlefield.
   2. In the event that a player sets a dial that either makes a ship flee the battlefield, or would lead to it fleeing the battlefield next turn, then the players opponent must instead choose a move in the dial that will prevent that ship from fleeing the field, or fleeing the field on the next turn.

Happy aside a rule preventing people from accidentally flying a ship off the board before some sort of meaningful engagement would quickly prevent those 'oops I dialled in the wrong move' discussions we see so often.

2 hours ago, Dreadai said:

It's not about saying that it is against the rules (though a statement in the tournament regulations that says it is against the spirit and letter of the rules to collude to intentionally draw a game will cover 99.9% of cases.)

It is about specifically updating the tournament regulations with rules that literally prevent intentional draws.

I could have phrased my stuff better. Some of this is a discussion of the historical context of when Final Salvo was added, and there were times players could draw games without fancy tricks. Also the tournament regs have been updated since then.

I guess I mostly meant that there have been times when it has been mechanically possible (significantly harder now), and times when it was less-forbidden w/r/t collusion.

//

2 hours ago, Dreadai said:

Solutions that I came up with with 5 minutes thought, so doubtless imperfect:

1. If a game goes to time and no points have been destroyed on either side, then the game shall be considered to be an intentional draw
2. If a game is declared an intentional draw, a game loss is awarded to both players.
3. Update to set up rules - during deployment phase, players are not permitted to place their ships in such a way that they will flee in the first turn
4. Added rules on fleeing the battlefield:
   1. A ship is not able to flee the battlefield before an combat has occurred. Once a combat has occurred, ships may flee the battlefield.
   2. In the event that a player sets a dial that either makes a ship flee the battlefield, or would lead to it fleeing the battlefield next turn, then the players opponent must instead choose a move in the dial that will prevent that ship from fleeing the field, or fleeing the field on the next turn.

Happy aside a rule preventing people from accidentally flying a ship off the board before some sort of meaningful engagement would quickly prevent those 'oops I dialled in the wrong move' discussions we see so often.

No-points-scored leading to a double loss could work in Swiss. Not sure it works post-cut in single elimination. Suppose it's down to final four players, with two players who score nothing, and the other table has a normal game. What's the final then, a rematch? Is there no final and the only semi-final winner just wins outright? What about an ID at final table? But that's all details that 5-min might not catch, the basic premise doesn't seem terrible.

Another nitpick, #3 & #4 kinda screw Moralo Eval. Easy to work around with a specific exception, though.

I'm also not sure I like accident protection for wrong moves, though.

//

Hope my tone isn't too bad or nitpicky. All good.

3 hours ago, Jarval said:

To nit-pick a little, that's not the case for every sport - Formula 1 for example uses a points scoring system per race, with the overall champion being the driver with the most points at the end of the season.

Pretty sure if you win 100% of the formula 1 races you are mathematically assured 1st overall.

Formula 1 compares better to a league than a tournament.

2 hours ago, S4ul0 said:

I don't understand why this thread is still going.

The only issue is the Starviper's chassis. Like the TIE Phantom is a bit cheap (and I think the latter is better).

The biggest reason this is an issue is that the Starviper *isn't* too cheap. Phantoms (well, Juke Phantoms specifically) had significantly more punching power than they should have for their cost, and Juke went up significantly. I don't think 4x Crack Shot Phantoms is going to be a bad list, but it hasn't really caught on.

Starvipers aren't like Phantoms were. When @ClassicalMoser does statistical models based on tournament performance, Starvipers pretty much all need a 2 point cut. This one list is overperforming, mostly because of one player, but in general the Starviper just isn't too cheap.

18 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

I think that’s peoples issue with the stalling tactic. People can’t make superior engagements against this kind of list. If the viper player doesn’t want to engage where you are trying to make them, they don’t. They know full well they have 12 die coming in FS. Mitch even said earlier, he controls 2 table edges, it’s hard to flank that.

Is it actually stalling if he can make a superior engagement but it just takes a little longer? I'm pretty sure one of the goals of the game is not to allow a superior engagement to the other side while trying to get one for yours.

49 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I could have phrased my stuff better. Some of this is a discussion of the historical context of when Final Salvo was added, and there were times players could draw games without fancy tricks. Also the tournament regs have been updated since then.

I guess I mostly meant that there have been times when it has been mechanically possible (significantly harder now), and times when it was less-forbidden w/r/t collusion.

//

No-points-scored leading to a double loss could work in Swiss. Not sure it works post-cut in single elimination. Suppose it's down to final four players, with two players who score nothing, and the other table has a normal game. What's the final then, a rematch? Is there no final and the only semi-final winner just wins outright? What about an ID at final table? But that's all details that 5-min might not catch, the basic premise doesn't seem terrible.

Another nitpick, #3 & #4 kinda screw Moralo Eval. Easy to work around with a specific exception, though.

I'm also not sure I like accident protection for wrong moves, though.

//

Hope my tone isn't too bad or nitpicky. All good.

I can't see where anyone would *want* to ID a cut game ... but I take the point ... if you introduce a tie break for cut, that would allow players to continue leveraging and advantage in that tie-break ... unless of course the tie break is a coin flip.

The accident protection idea is to basically prevent players from turning off the board to get 200-200 mutual destruction ... there is doubtless a better / more elegant solution

On Moralo - a club mate raised the same thing - I think it's covered by the Golden rule (rules on cards supersede those in a rules document)?

9 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

The biggest reason this is an issue is that the Starviper *isn't* too cheap. Phantoms (well, Juke Phantoms specifically) had significantly more punching power than they should have for their cost, and Juke went up significantly. I don't think 4x Crack Shot Phantoms is going to be a bad list, but it hasn't really caught on.

Starvipers aren't like Phantoms were. When @ClassicalMoser does statistical models based on tournament performance, Starvipers pretty much all need a 2 point cut. This one list is overperforming, mostly because of one player, but in general the Starviper just isn't too cheap.

I think all statistical models are garbage. You can compare results but skill is an impossible parameter to measure.

Also, you can't rate the decloak system and the Starviper's bank barrel roll without taking the skill factor.

If you compare stats, the Starviper and maybe the TIE Phantom are fine but they have THAT thing that in the right hands returns a lot of value.

No, I don't care of statistical models. I truly believe the ship is undercosted.

Ah, and I think Juke was fine.

14 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

On Moralo - a club mate raised the same thing - I think it's covered by the Golden rule (rules on cards supersede those in a rules document)?

Unfortunately no. It would require Moralo be errata'd to contradict the Set-up phase restriction, since he only changes what happens when he does flee. Currently he reads: If you would flee, you may spend 1 . If you do, place yourself in reserves instead. At the start of the next Planning Phase, place yourself within range 1 of the edge of the play area that you fled from.

14 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

I can't see where anyone would *want* to ID a cut game ... but I take the point ... if you introduce a tie break for cut, that would allow players to continue leveraging and advantage in that tie-break ... unless of course the tie break is a coin flip.

I was half thinking that a double-loss for no points scored also gets at the stalling "issue", indirectly. Since it replaces any final salvo advantages with mutually assured destruction, it alters the incentives of a corner hover and an ace flee.

Changing the incentives is something I could get behind. A nebulous judge's "I know it when I see it" really irks me.

Quote

I think all statistical models are garbage. You can compare results but skill is an impossible parameter to measure.

Also, you can't rate the decloak system and the Starviper's bank barrel roll without taking the skill factor.

If you compare stats, the Starviper and maybe the TIE Phantom are fine but they have THAT thing that in the right hands returns a lot of value.

No, I don't care of statistical models. I truly believe the ship is undercosted.

I don't really follow. Are you suggesting that high-skill-ceiling ships should be priced only according to the person who performs at the absolute best with them? If so, then why get good with a certain list, if it's just going to get it punished? Or maybe you're suggesting that no precise point cost can possibly be correct for Starvipers or Phantoms?

"Comparing stats" is exactly what you shouldn't do to correct points costs, and is definitely not what my statistical model does. All of my models are based on nothing but how the ship has actually performed. For example, Soontir doesn't have a great stat line, but my model still suggests he needs a 4-point hike because he's been flown to a whole lot of competitive success, especially in the past season. On the other hand, the VCX and the TIE Defender have great Stat Lines, but my model suggests a price cut for them because they haven't done well.

In the case of the StarViper specifically, most of the pilots get a 1-2 point cut (including Guri by 1 point) because most of the time when they've been flown, they've received below-average results. The only difference is the Black Sun Assassin, who my model bumps up by 2 points, which comes, as @theBitterFig pointed out, almost strictly from data provided by one player.

48 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

Ah, and I think Juke was fine.

Juke is still doing extremely well at 7 points. 7 points is exactly the right cost for it. Any more would make it too expensive, but where it's at is great, not just for ships with free evade, but for any high-initiative ship with evade. It turns what is normally a defensive-only modification into both a defensive and an offensive modification at once, without stepping on the toes of re-roll or focus-turning abilities. For example, take Vermeil with Vader and Juke. He can evade every turn, and Vader off the opponent's focus. Then he gets to turn one blank or focus result into a hit, and then gets to cancel a defender's evade, which probably cannot then be turned. Better still, if the defender wasn't focused in the first place, he gets to deal a free damage on top of that. And if the defender was I4 or below, he gets a guaranteed evade result on the return fire.

It's not just him either. It works well on Duchess with 5th Brother, on Soontir with a Targeting Computer, On Wulfwarro with Jyn and Perceptive Co-Pilot, and many many more. It's definitely worth a point more than Outmaneuver. It's like a constantly-reusable crack shot without the bullseye requirement, that doesn't even take an action to reload.

57 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I don't really follow. Are you suggesting that high-skill-ceiling ships should be priced only according to the person who performs at the absolute best with them? If so, then why get good with a certain list, if it's just going to get it punished? Or maybe you're suggesting that no precise point cost can possibly be correct for Starvipers or Phantoms?

"Comparing stats" is exactly what you shouldn't do to correct points costs, and is definitely not what my statistical model does. All of my models are based on nothing but how the ship has actually performed. For example, Soontir doesn't have a great stat line, but my model still suggests he needs a 4-point hike because he's been flown to a whole lot of competitive success, especially in the past season. On the other hand, the VCX and the TIE Defender have great Stat Lines, but my model suggests a price cut for them because they haven't done well.

In the case of the StarViper specifically, most of the pilots get a 1-2 point cut (including Guri by 1 point) because most of the time when they've been flown, they've received below-average results. The only difference is the Black Sun Assassin, who my model bumps up by 2 points, which comes, as @theBitterFig pointed out, almost strictly from data provided by one player.

Juke is still doing extremely well at 7 points. 7 points is exactly the right cost for it. Any more would make it too expensive, but where it's at is great, not just for ships with free evade, but for any high-initiative ship with evade. It turns what is normally a defensive-only modification into both a defensive and an offensive modification at once, without stepping on the toes of re-roll or focus-turning abilities. For example, take Vermeil with Vader and Juke. He can evade every turn, and Vader off the opponent's focus. Then he gets to turn one blank or focus result into a hit, and then gets to cancel a defender's evade, which probably cannot then be turned. Better still, if the defender wasn't focused in the first place, he gets to deal a free damage on top of that. And if the defender was I4 or below, he gets a guaranteed evade result on the return fire.

It's not just him either. It works well on Duchess with 5th Brother, on Soontir with a Targeting Computer, On Wulfwarro with Jyn and Perceptive Co-Pilot, and many many more. It's definitely worth a point more than Outmaneuver. It's like a constantly-reusable crack shot without the bullseye requirement, that doesn't even take an action to reload.

It's your opinion man. I know your work but I don't like it if it's used to try to balance the game.

Compare stats is fine when you compare ships with the same rol in a squad and reposition abilities. It's a little tricky when includes initiative and moves. I look at ships to take references, not to price them. That's FFG business, but in my opinion there are some errors here and there.

If you think punish the players for playing the ships they love and perform well with them, is a better approach to a balanced game, I don't agree.

Juke is playable now, that's true, but it's limited. I would prefer another solution to Quad Phantoms like a cheaper Juke but an increase cost of the ships with free evade actions.

8 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

If you think punish the players for playing the ships they love and perform well with them, is a better approach to a balanced game, I don't agree.

I'm finding that I can't really play the lists I want to play because I keep getting initiative killed and losing at time by points that aren't on the board because they were used for a bid. If a pilot like Soontir needs a bid a better-chance-to-move-last upgrade a player should not have to destroy the entire list to score those points.

11 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I'm finding that I can't really play the lists I want to play because I keep getting initiative killed and losing at time by points that aren't on the board because they were used for a bid. If a pilot like Soontir needs a bid a better-chance-to-move-last upgrade a player should not have to destroy the entire list to score those points.

If you don't kill Soontir you don't deserve the points cost of his upgrades, whatever they are.

If you don't destroy more expensive things than your opponent, you lose the game. That's how the competitive game works.

I lost to Soontir a lot of times too. It's a good pilot, but I don't think is a problem.

5 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

If you don't kill Soontir you don't deserve the points cost of his upgrades, whatever they are.

No. You have to kill the entire list to get any points the list spent on better-chance-to-move-last upgrades. If a bid was properly treated as an upgrade you could kill Soontir and score those upgrade points without killing the entire list. You could half-point Soontir and get half of those better-chance-to-move-last upgrade points.

Generic Star Vipers up 5 points. Problem solved.

20 minutes ago, XPav said:

Generic Star Vipers up 5 points. Problem solved.

No, that solves nothing. Everyone is laser focused in on the ships being used as the reason the tactic is possible. This is wrong. With only minor adjustments to the application of the tactic, any ship with the ability to perform a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll can "stall" just as effectively.

21 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

No, that solves nothing. Everyone is laser focused in on the ships being used as the reason the tactic is possible. This is wrong. With only minor adjustments to the application of the tactic, any ship with the ability to perform a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll can "stall" just as effectively.

Any ship with the ability to perform a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll up to 51 points. Problem solved!

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

No. You have to kill the entire list to get any points the list spent on better-chance-to-move-last upgrades. If a bid was properly treated as an upgrade you could kill Soontir and score those upgrade points without killing the entire list. You could half-point Soontir and get half of those better-chance-to-move-last upgrade points.

This is how you see that. Actually is only an issue on matchups when there are pilots with the same initiative.

If there aren't, the bid is a less efficient squad.

The scoring system rewards destroying ships and I think you are looking at this in the wrong way. For the point fortress tactic you need to go ahead on points, and a more efficient squad remove ships better.

If a ship or pilot can't be destroyed it's another problem, but we are not in the times of unbreakable defensive cappabilities.

9 hours ago, Jarval said:

To nit-pick a little, that's not the case for every sport - Formula 1 for example uses a points scoring system per race, with the overall champion being the driver with the most points at the end of the season.

While you’re quite right, if the F1 season on had 3 races in the tournament, they may have a different system.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

No, that solves nothing. Everyone is laser focused in on the ships being used as the reason the tactic is possible. This is wrong. With only minor adjustments to the application of the tactic, any ship with the ability to perform a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll can "stall" just as effectively.

Don't forget every medium base with a barrel roll! Since this thread blew up I've been reexamining my use of "crab-walking" Arc-170s in the opening. It's harder to set up since you can't just make a 2x2 block in the setup area, but once dialed in the formation can move pretty slowly along the chosen edge.

5 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Is it actually stalling if he can make a superior engagement but it just takes a little longer? I'm pretty sure one of the goals of the game is not to allow a superior engagement to the other side while trying to get one for yours.

Yes. That is the justification for stalling, but it doesn't make it not stalling. That's also been the justification for all stalling, so it doesn't make this instance better.

8 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Don't forget every medium base with a barrel roll! Since this thread blew up I've been reexamining my use of "crab-walking" Arc-170s in the opening. It's harder to set up since you can't just make a 2x2 block in the setup area, but once dialed in the formation can move pretty slowly along the chosen edge.

Kimo, Scurrg, Punisher, and Arc. At least those are the meds with Barrel roll that I can remember.

19 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Yes. That is the justification for stalling, but it doesn't make it not stalling. That's also been the justification for all stalling, so it doesn't make this instance better.

I see. So you too know stalling when you see it.

Just now, Frimmel said:

I see. So you too know stalling when you see it.

No, but you're falsely assuming "stalling" and "trying to get an advantage" are mutually exclusive. They are not. Virtually everyone who stalls is doing so for some sort of advantage, so trying to write of stalling as "oh, he's just trying to get a good engage" is not a valid argument because that's why everyone who finds stalling to be viable does it.

24 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Yes. That is the justification for stalling, but it doesn't make it not stalling. That's also been the justification for all stalling, so it doesn't make this instance better.

What makes it not stalling is that it has nothing to do with intentionally slow playing decisions and actions, or fortressing (which is considered stalling).

Stalling has a definition in the rules and some judges are stretching it beyond its definition. If they want to punish avoiding engagements, they really need to give it another name.