# Skirmish Scoring is Now Based on Figure Cost, not Deployment Card Cost

## Recommended Posts

I believe you are mistaken. 'Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures' is very clear instruction to count VPs per figure, because 'figure cost' is an actual game mechanic term and 'all destroyed figures' clearly means, well, all of them, not just the ones that had their entire deployment group destroyed. The part after the dash is just a clarification specifically regarding scoring VPs for attachments. That's the only instance in which taking out full deployment groups matters for VP purposes and that's why it's separated from the first provision by a dash.

How SO?   This is directly from the Skirmish Rule set.

"Winning a Skirmish

The game endsas soon as one player has accumulated 40 victory points (VPs). The player with the most VPs wins the game. VPs come from two main sources:
Defeating Figures:
When the last figure in a group is defeated, the opposing player scores VPs equal to the deployment cost of that group. To track this, the card’s controller places the Deployment card near his opponent.
Card and Mission Effects:
Each Skirmish Mission card lists special ways in which players can gain VPs. In addition, some Command or Deployment cards may list additional ways in which players gain VPs.
When a player gains VPs in any of these ways, he should record the number of VPs and keep it by the figures he has defeated. We recommend using the Threat Dial to track these
VPs, though players may wish to use tokens, dice, or a piece of paper.  If all of a player’s figures are defeated, he loses the game immediately, regardless of victory points. "

The new FAQ just expands on this

Calculating a Player’s Victory Points
A player’s victory points determines who won the game in most situations. Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed. Then the player adds any victory points he or she has gained from card or mission effects

How is it that every on is over looking the fact that they say "in which all of its figures have been destroyed"   there is no period to separate the sentence,  It just expands on the Rues section for Skirmish,     Hopefully FFG will respond to this with an official ruling sooner rather than later.

##### Share on other sites

Because all destroyed "figures" is different than destroyed deployment "groups".

Also, per a direct response from FFGOP on twitter it is now intended to be vp per figure defeated.

And yes, they made a huge misstep making this announcement in a poorly worded tournament rules update instead of a FAQ but that's been said over and over in this thread.

##### Share on other sites

I believe you are mistaken. 'Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures' is very clear instruction to count VPs per figure, because 'figure cost' is an actual game mechanic term and 'all destroyed figures' clearly means, well, all of them, not just the ones that had their entire deployment group destroyed. The part after the dash is just a clarification specifically regarding scoring VPs for attachments. That's the only instance in which taking out full deployment groups matters for VP purposes and that's why it's separated from the first provision by a dash.

How SO?   This is directly from the Skirmish Rule set.

"Winning a Skirmish

The game endsas soon as one player has accumulated 40 victory points (VPs). The player with the most VPs wins the game. VPs come from two main sources:

Defeating Figures:

When the last figure in a group is defeated, the opposing player scores VPs equal to the deployment cost of that group. To track this, the card’s controller places the Deployment card near his opponent.

Card and Mission Effects:

Each Skirmish Mission card lists special ways in which players can gain VPs. In addition, some Command or Deployment cards may list additional ways in which players gain VPs.

When a player gains VPs in any of these ways, he should record the number of VPs and keep it by the figures he has defeated. We recommend using the Threat Dial to track these

VPs, though players may wish to use tokens, dice, or a piece of paper.  If all of a player’s figures are defeated, he loses the game immediately, regardless of victory points. "

The new FAQ just expands on this

Calculating a Player’s Victory Points

A player’s victory points determines who won the game in most situations. Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed. Then the player adds any victory points he or she has gained from card or mission effects

How is it that every on is over looking the fact that they say "in which all of its figures have been destroyed"   there is no period to separate the sentence,  It just expands on the Rues section for Skirmish,     Hopefully FFG will respond to this with an official ruling sooner rather than later.

We aren't overlooking it, but grammatically it doesn't modify "all of their opponent's destroyed figures" but only pertains to the "upgrade cards attached to a deployment group." Because of this, the phrase you're referring to doesn't affect the statement that VPs are granted for all the destroyed figures. That is, assuming FFG knows their grammar and have punctuated everything correctly.

-ryanjamal

##### Share on other sites

I believe you are mistaken. 'Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures' is very clear instruction to count VPs per figure, because 'figure cost' is an actual game mechanic term and 'all destroyed figures' clearly means, well, all of them, not just the ones that had their entire deployment group destroyed. The part after the dash is just a clarification specifically regarding scoring VPs for attachments. That's the only instance in which taking out full deployment groups matters for VP purposes and that's why it's separated from the first provision by a dash.

How SO?   This is directly from the Skirmish Rule set.

"Winning a Skirmish

Because there are different rules governing winning a 'Skirmish Game' and a 'Tournament Round of a Skirmish Tournament'. For example, rules for winning the latter involve time limits and tiebreakers, which the rules for winning the former do not. When at a tournament, tournament rules overwrite the basic rules. A different way of scoring VPs is now another rule, alongside tiebreakers and time limits, that works differently in tournament play as opposed to regular play detailed in the Skirmish Guide.

Calculating a Player’s Victory Points
A player’s victory points determines who won the game in most situations. Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed. Then the player adds any victory points he or she has gained from card or mission effects

How is it that every on is over looking the fact that they say "in which all of its figures have been destroyed"   there is no period to separate the sentence,  It just expands on the Rues section for Skirmish,     Hopefully FFG will respond to this with an official ruling sooner rather than later.

No one is overlooking that part. That part refers only to the instance of calculating VPs for attached Skirmish Upgrades. I don't like to get all technical with grammar and syntax on the internet, but the dash is there to separate two independent clauses.

It's not

"Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figuresincluding any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed".

It's

"Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figuresincluding any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed"

You do the calculation as instructed in the clause before the dash, ie. by calculating figure costs. Then, and only after you did that first part, you get to the second clause, which instructs you to add the value of any attachment, as long as the condition listed (destruction of all figures in a deployment group) is met. Both of those are independent. You do A first, then check if B applies, and if it does, you do that after you finish doing A.

In order for it to actually mean what you are proposing in accordance to the rules of English syntax, it would have to read:

"Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any attached Upgrade cards—of a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed."

And that would still be a fairly clunky sentence to convey the intent you are proposing. And it would still, in fact, mean that stuff like Snowtroopers or Saboteurs provide a different amount of VP than their Deployment Cost, because the sentence is still instructing you to count Figure Cost (which, again, is a term strictly defined in the game's rules) while never referencing Deployment Cost.

If all this fails to convince you, consider the Occam's Razor approach. Why would the developer team go through the trouble of rewording several paragraphs of the rules with completely different verbage and completely different terminology, if their intent was to change nothing at all?

Edited by Don_Silvarro

##### Share on other sites

Upon further reflection, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with how aloof FFG is on this entire rules release/update.

When FFG changed the tournament point scoring for X-Wing, they had a big fat article on the frontpage that even contained a 'Word from the Developer' column that explained the reasoning behind the change.

Heck, they even had a 'Developer Diary' article when they errata'd a couple of upgrade cards.

Meanwhile, when Imperial Assault gets a major rules change that literally puts the competitive gameplay on its head, we're stuck for four days and counting trying to figure out what they even mean with not so much as a peep from anyone at the helm.

Yes, I get that X-Wing pays your bills, FFG, and therefore gets more attention. But frankly, at this point, this is disrespectful to the consumers of your product.

I'm no expert in the inner workings of FFG, but I think that's more what the individual developers focus on instead of FFG ignoring one game over another.

Just my \$0.02

##### Share on other sites

As far as the frontpage is concerned, it seems logical to me that there would be more to the decision of what shows up there than individual designers' whims. In any event, this entire thing is still nothing other than a trainwreck.

Edited by Don_Silvarro

##### Share on other sites

NEW REGULATIONS UPDATE IS UP

THE WORST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN USED. FFG IS ON CRACK.

If a defeated figure is placed back on the map, the owner places a strain token on that figure’s deployment card to track the previous defeat.

Now that I've calmed down a bit, I think I was more upset by the lack of clarification and poor wording than by which actual interpretation wins.

I do still think it's a much bigger nerf to troopers than it had to be. I think too much changed at once, during Regionals and straight after a whole new wave. It's going to need a lot of play testing.

Edited by Inquisitorsz

##### Share on other sites

Worst interpretation? Sounds like the most sense to me.

##### Share on other sites

But at least it puts the reinforcements debate to rest. Defeating a figure again gives more victory points.

##### Share on other sites

This STILL doesn't spell out whether or not you gain VPs for defeating that figure again. And whether or not you trigger Nefarious Gains by defeating it again.

It only says to mark the dude you Reinforce back. Which functionally does nothing.

Go home FFG, you're drunk.

Edited by Don_Silvarro

##### Share on other sites

Sigh. Why they didn't just say to track the points using the same methods as you need to track them anyway due to gaining VP from objectives and other abilities.

Edit: actually, the figures and strain token on the deployment card seem to be only for the purposes of having a way to double-check the results.

Calculating Victory Points is pretty unambiguous about each defeat giving VP.

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites

And this STILL doesn't spell out whether or not you gain VPs for defeating that figure again. And whether or not you trigger Nefarious Gains by defeating it again.

Go home FFG, you're drunk.

Key sentence: If a defeated figure is placed back on the map, the owner places a strain token on that figure’s deployment card to track the previous defeat.

You gain those VPs again, and trigger Jabba's abilty.

##### Share on other sites

But at least it puts the reinforcements debate to rest. Defeating a figure again gives more victory points.

Key sentence: If a defeated figure is placed back on the map, the owner places a strain token on that figure’s deployment card to track the previous defeat.

You gain those VPs again, and trigger Jabba's abilty.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the rules. It says to put a strain token on the card. That's it.

I can just as easily interpret it that you "track the previous defeat" because the figure is still defeated and cannot be scored again when defeated again. This 'clarification' clarifies nothing.

Edited by Don_Silvarro

##### Share on other sites

It says put a strain on the deployment card.

It's just using a strain token to show there's supposed to be another figure "dead" on that deployment card for the purposes of calculating points.
The strain counts as a dead trooper.

So yes, you do score points again, and from Jabba's ability and anything else.

Edited by Inquisitorsz

##### Share on other sites

I can just as easily interpret it that you "track the previous defeat" because the figure is still defeated and cannot be scored again when defeated again.

A figure cannot be 'still defeated' if it is on the map. If it were defeated, it would be immediately removed from the map.

The figures and strain tokens on the deployment cards seem to be only for the purposes of having a way to double-check the results. They are not directly connected to scoring other than for verification purposes.

The Calculating Victory Points chapter is pretty unambiguous about each defeat giving VP (and potential attachment when the last figure on the group is defeated).

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites

Okay, previously I had literally no idea how it could be read, I am now leaning towards your guys' way.

Though I still maintain that what's written in the document is still written in the most confusing around-the-point way imaginable. It boggles my mind how seemingly hard it is for the dev team to just unambigously spell out what they mean word by word.

##### Share on other sites

I'm going to stake a claim here: a main cause of the confusion of the new rules, is that the game has never had any tool for measuring VP during skirmishes.

The only way so far, has been if you happen to have won one of those scoring dials that were included in a few of the tournament kits. I've seen the book-keeping done with anything from the threat/round dial to objective tokens, to strain tokens, to a piece of paper, or a phone app.

The reality is, though, that there are so many things that add and subract victory points in the game, that it is getting harder and harder to represent the points with anything but a piece of paper or the app used (or the elusive dial). If there had been some sort of component for book-keeping in the base game, we wouldn't need all sorts of spurious ways of keeping track of them - strain on deployment cards for reinforced figures here and singular points from On A Diplomatic Mission there, or points from Pickpocket over there. Instead the rules would just tell us to X number of points to your tracker.

Edited by Cremate

##### Share on other sites

I'm going to stake a claim here: a main cause of the confusion of the new rules, is that the game has never had any tool for measuring VP during skirmishes.

The only way so far, has been if you happen to have won one of those scoring dials that were included in a few of the tournament kits. I've seen the book-keeping done with anything from the threat/round dial to objective tokens, to strain tokens, to a piece of paper, or a phone app.

The reality is, though, that there are so many things that add and subract victory points in the game, that it is getting harder and harder to represent the points with anything but a piece of paper or the app used (or the elusive dial). If there had been some sort of component for book-keeping in the base game, we wouldn't need all sorts of spurious ways of keeping track of them - strain on deployment cards for reinforced figures here and singular points from On A Diplomatic Mission there, or points from Pickpocket over there. Instead the rules would just tell us to X number of points to your tracker.

This is exactly correct.

And to add further, the tournament rules specifically restrict taking notes, which puts pen and paper scoring in a hazy grey area.

Score Dial or Phone App is the best way. It should be official. Mind you the prize kits dials are horrible.

The threat/round dial is the clearest and easiest "semi-official" way.

Edited by Inquisitorsz

##### Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is going to get on your hide for taking notes of the points, even if notes are technically forbidden. Technically, that also applies to notes on a phone though, so that app has no more basis than paper has.

It's just a bit hillarious that a competitive tactical game based on VP has no component for tracking exactly that.

##### Share on other sites

The regulations have been updated again. No more ambiguity thankfully.

##### Share on other sites

You are allowed to record points on paper.

And you're really doing your opponent and yourself a disservice if you don't.

##### Share on other sites

You are allowed to record points on paper.

And you're really doing your opponent and yourself a disservice if you don't.

You aren't. It specifically says no note taking.

Locally we allow it and make sure everyone agrees before a tournament starts, but the rules clearly forbid it.

There's no distinction between scoring and note taking.

The bigger issue here, is that there's no official way to track points.

It's always been "defeated groups" and mission tokens/crates that you've claimed or turned in.

Now there's all sorts of ways to earn and lose VPs and that old method doesn't work any more.

It's also why they started giving out score dial prize kits.

But it's still a messy system. Score dial or paper is the best way of course, but it's hard to allow paper scoring but forbid note taking. the rules terminology would be more annoying than this recent blunder.

Edited by Inquisitorsz

##### Share on other sites

No one is going to pounce at anyone for keeping record on paper - and the rules could be clearer on this (and on keeping score in general).

##### Share on other sites

I'm going to stake a claim here: a main cause of the confusion of the new rules, is that the game has never had any tool for measuring VP during skirmishes.

The only way so far, has been if you happen to have won one of those scoring dials that were included in a few of the tournament kits. I've seen the book-keeping done with anything from the threat/round dial to objective tokens, to strain tokens, to a piece of paper, or a phone app.

The reality is, though, that there are so many things that add and subract victory points in the game, that it is getting harder and harder to represent the points with anything but a piece of paper or the app used (or the elusive dial). If there had been some sort of component for book-keeping in the base game, we wouldn't need all sorts of spurious ways of keeping track of them - strain on deployment cards for reinforced figures here and singular points from On A Diplomatic Mission there, or points from Pickpocket over there. Instead the rules would just tell us to X number of points to your tracker.

I agree it is kinda a mess throwing everything on the table.  Maybe how armada handles this, with damage directly on the base?

##### Share on other sites

You are allowed to record points on paper.

And you're really doing your opponent and yourself a disservice if you don't.

You aren't. It specifically says no note taking.

Locally we allow it and make sure everyone agrees before a tournament starts, but the rules clearly forbid it.

There's no distinction between scoring and note taking.

The bigger issue here, is that there's no official way to track points.

It's always been "defeated groups" and mission tokens/crates that you've claimed or turned in.

Now there's all sorts of ways to earn and lose VPs and that old method doesn't work any more.

It's also why they started giving out score dial prize kits.

But it's still a messy system. Score dial or paper is the best way of course, but it's hard to allow paper scoring but forbid note taking. the rules terminology would be more annoying than this recent blunder.

Umm that is not note taking, that is keeping score.  Note taking is writing down command cards or units, positions etc.  You have to keep score, dont over-complicated something when you dont have to.