Jump to content



Photo

Tournaments


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

Sideboards are only really needed when you're playing a best-out-of-X series using the same deck each time.  If you're going to play LS once and then switch to DS for the next game, there's really no reason to sideboard any cards/objective sets.



#42 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:16 PM

Chrome said:

stormwolf27 said:

or total objective damage left before win

 

That wouldn't really work well b/c not all Objective cards have the same Health. Two (or more) players could face the same opponent, inflict the exact same amount of damage against his DS Objectives but have different tie-breaker scores.

FREX the DS player's Ojb Deck has 2x Take Them Prisoner (6 Health), 1x Heart of the Empire (10), 2x Emperor's Web (4), 1x Hit and Run (4), and 3 others with 5 Health each.  If he faced 3 players and each of them destroyed 2 Objs with 5 Health (IE they each inflicted 10 pts of dmg on their Objectives) then the DS player won w/no damage on his remaining Objs, the LS player's Tie-Breaker score would be equal to the Obj card w/the lowest Health.

1st game ends w/ Emporer's Web, Hit and Run, and Take them Prisoner on the table - Player 1's tie-breaker score would be 4.

2nd game ends w/Take Them Prisoner, Heart of the Empire, and a 5 Health card on the table - Player 2's score is 5.

3rd game ends w/both Take Them Prisoners and Heart of the Empire. His score is 6.

 

 

Right. I see where you're coming from. It was just a thought. I was only thinking of tie-breaker points counting within the match, though, to determine winner. For the tournament tie-breaker, you use SOS and Prestige, like with Netrunner and AGoT. (Netrunner does Prestige where it's 2 points per game win and an extra point per match win, for a possible 5 points prestige, which helps break ties between people in the rare case of matchins SOS's).


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#43 qwertyuiop

qwertyuiop

    Member

  • Members
  • 815 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:38 AM

MarthWMaster said:

Since the game is so short, I guess having multiple games in a match wouldn't be the worst thing. But how do players determine who plays which side during a tiebreaker game?

 

 Issue the player's a starting side randomly during pairing. This will be their side if a tie breaker is needed. If time runs out during a tie breaking game, either issue both players 1 point as a tie, or hand out a win based on cards remaining in the play deck.  Is there something I'm not considering? This is of course assuming that a match consists of each player playing a game with both sides. 

 

Or just alternate a player's side between rounds and run matches as best of three. I don't remember players in a SWCCG tournament ever really being stuck playing one side during the majority of the tournament…unless it was sealed/draft



#44 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,437 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:47 AM

qwertyuiop said:

 I don't remember players in a SWCCG tournament ever really being stuck playing one side during the majority of the tournament…unless it was sealed/draft

SWCCG you always played the same number of games as LS and DS (unless you had a bye).  I posted a link to the tournament guide for SWCCG a little earlier in the thread - I plan on using that format if I run any tournaments between now and when FFG releases actual tournament rules.



#45 Jypsy

Jypsy

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 02:17 PM

Locally, we have been planning on running our events in the same fashion as Netrunner, since that is the most likely way FFG will handle the tournament scenario. (It also has never been an issue for our Netrunner events. People love the ability to play two different decks in one round) 

As for the points decisions…that is the tricky part. But we shall see what happens. I hope it is as simple as A:NR or reasonably close to it. 

When I discussed the idea of only using one of the two decks per round, it was unanimously shot down. People are required to build two decks, and want to enjoy the experience of playing both of them. It is a core part of the game, so it only makes sense to exist in the tournament structure as well.

 

 



#46 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.



#47 Jypsy

Jypsy

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 06:51 PM

Roman_Sandal said:

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.

Most players I have seen play at this point take about 35-40 minutes a game, but they are still in the "read every card that's played" stage. Once everyone entering a tournament is more familiar with the cards, there is no reason the games should take longer than 30 minutes, netrunner has 65 minute rounds, which feels more than adequate for any tournament level play. 

That said, I really don't expect serious tournaments to kick off for a month at least, which would provide people time to get acquainted with their decks. 
Locally we probably will use a bit longer of a time limit in the coming weeks, maybe 80 minute rounds, to take a bit of pressure off newer players. Either that or I may just keep an eye on how long games are taking in competive play and go from there. 

 



#48 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

Kryptonite Kollectibles said:

Roman_Sandal said:

 

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.

 

 

Most players I have seen play at this point take about 35-40 minutes a game, but they are still in the "read every card that's played" stage. Once everyone entering a tournament is more familiar with the cards, there is no reason the games should take longer than 30 minutes, netrunner has 65 minute rounds, which feels more than adequate for any tournament level play. 

That said, I really don't expect serious tournaments to kick off for a month at least, which would provide people time to get acquainted with their decks. 
Locally we probably will use a bit longer of a time limit in the coming weeks, maybe 80 minute rounds, to take a bit of pressure off newer players. Either that or I may just keep an eye on how long games are taking in competive play and go from there. 

 

Swiss Draw?

How many rounds are you looking at having for 8 or less players?

3 matches therefore 6 games each in a tournament?



#49 Chrome

Chrome

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:39 AM

stormwolf27 said:

Right. I see where you're coming from. It was just a thought. I was only thinking of tie-breaker points counting within the match, though, to determine winner. For the tournament tie-breaker, you use SOS and Prestige, like with Netrunner and AGoT. (Netrunner does Prestige where it's 2 points per game win and an extra point per match win, for a possible 5 points prestige, which helps break ties between people in the rare case of matchins SOS's).

Ah, and I see where you were coming from now.  I wasn't considering it from that point of veiw. Only for breaking ties for future pairings/cut downs.



#50 Jypsy

Jypsy

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:06 PM

Yes, Swiss Draw and in an 8 person event each person would end up playing 6 games total. 

The more we play, the more we are seeing games come in under the 30 minute mark, it just comes down to familiarity. 

 



#51 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#52 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 06:50 PM

stormwolf27 said:

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?



#53 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:32 AM

ScottieATF said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#54 Xenu's Paradox

Xenu's Paradox

    Member

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

Play 1 round as DS and 1 round as LS against each opponent.

Round wins are 1 point.

Strength of Schedule breaks ties.

 

Is there anything I've overlooked?



#55 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:43 PM

stormwolf27 said:

ScottieATF said:

 

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

 

 

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.

 

You've just made Trench Run unplayable, effecting that whole objective set, and you've just taken away a large part of the built in downside of Heart of the Empire, as now it might as well say unattackable.  You can't take the chance in the first game of having a zero as a tie-breaker, because that means losing the game is a near automatic round loss. 

Tournament rules should do there best to not dictate meta or in-game tactics.  Rounds being often being decided by tie-breakers do just that, especially tie-breakers that directly effect a cards usability.   The second game of each of those rounds won't become about winning, it will become about not losing as bad as the other guy did.  Kamikaze runs against objectives that are not tactically viable but will give you the edge in tie-breakers while losing the game.  I seriously hope that is not the way FFG takes thier tournament rules for this game.



#56 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

ScottieATF said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

ScottieATF said:

 

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

 

 

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.

 

 

 

You've just made Trench Run unplayable, effecting that whole objective set, and you've just taken away a large part of the built in downside of Heart of the Empire, as now it might as well say unattackable.  You can't take the chance in the first game of having a zero as a tie-breaker, because that means losing the game is a near automatic round loss. 

Tournament rules should do there best to not dictate meta or in-game tactics.  Rounds being often being decided by tie-breakers do just that, especially tie-breakers that directly effect a cards usability.   The second game of each of those rounds won't become about winning, it will become about not losing as bad as the other guy did.  Kamikaze runs against objectives that are not tactically viable but will give you the edge in tie-breakers while losing the game.  I seriously hope that is not the way FFG takes thier tournament rules for this game.

 

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#57 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 139 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

stormwolf27 said:

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).

Basically, yes. The entire advantage of attacking Heart of the Empire or the Death Star Dial is that you reduce the amount of total damage that you need to deal to win. Yes, you could engage multiple objectives in a turn, but focusing all of your damage on Heart or the Dial makes the most of your advantage in playing it.

That being said, I disagree that Trench Run becomes useless - it still reduces the damage you need to deal from on average 15 to 10. If your opponent opens Heart of the Empire, or you with Trench Run, it's still worth targeting them.



#58 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:11 PM

D.Knight Sevus said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).

 

 

Basically, yes. The entire advantage of attacking Heart of the Empire or the Death Star Dial is that you reduce the amount of total damage that you need to deal to win. Yes, you could engage multiple objectives in a turn, but focusing all of your damage on Heart or the Dial makes the most of your advantage in playing it.

That being said, I disagree that Trench Run becomes useless - it still reduces the damage you need to deal from on average 15 to 10. If your opponent opens Heart of the Empire, or you with Trench Run, it's still worth targeting them.

The risk is to great because if you lose the game, and thus earn a 0 for a tie-breaker, you've conceded the whole round.  As your opponent would have to be completely dominated in return, to the point of scoring not a single objective for you to just even the score.  I mean it isn't hard for the LS to kill one objective even if soundly beaten in a straight up game, but in a game where they knew all they had to do was take one?  Just keep attacking out regardless of how open it leaves you because you only need on objective.

The second game under such a system will be completely perverted.  It will not be about atttempting to win the game, it is only about losing it not as bad.  That is going to lead the savy player into doing some stupid stuff that will gain in the short term but hand the game to thier opponent, because they don't need to try and win the game at all.  The tournament rules for a card game should not change the game that much.



#59 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 139 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:13 AM

ScottieATF said:

The risk is to great because if you lose the game, and thus earn a 0 for a tie-breaker, you've conceded the whole round.  As your opponent would have to be completely dominated in return, to the point of scoring not a single objective for you to just even the score.  I mean it isn't hard for the LS to kill one objective even if soundly beaten in a straight up game, but in a game where they knew all they had to do was take one?  Just keep attacking out regardless of how open it leaves you because you only need on objective.

The second game under such a system will be completely perverted.  It will not be about atttempting to win the game, it is only about losing it not as bad.  That is going to lead the savy player into doing some stupid stuff that will gain in the short term but hand the game to thier opponent, because they don't need to try and win the game at all.  The tournament rules for a card game should not change the game that much.

If you lose the game. Only having to inflict 10 damage to win is such a massive advantage that if you can start swinging at Heart or the Death Star on turn 1, it is far more likely that you'll win the game than playing it normally. What I will concede that it does is narrow the window during which attacking Heart and the Dial are viable, but at least in the case of Trench Run, it's still got 2 Force icons for the Edge battle, making it one of the Rebel Alliance's better edge cards.

Additionally, to win the match on tiebreakers, you must do better than your opponent did while actively trying to win the match. If you win as the Light Side player with the dial at 8, you still must play well enough to advance the dial to 9 or higher. If you win as the Dark with two destroyed objectives, you must win the game outright to win the match.

Finally, looking at Netrunner's prestige system, which is very likely to be implemented in Star Wars, winning a match 2-0 gives you 6 prestige, while winning 1-1 on tie breakers only gives you 4, and affords your opponent 2. If you're actively trying to win the tournament (which you ought to be, if you're a savvy tournament player), then it is in your best interests to win every game in the match.



#60 aussiecossie

aussiecossie

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:20 AM

Who's to say too that there won't be other future special win conditions added in future sets that further complicate what ever for and against system we come up with (something that I'm still not sold on that we actually need) but if we HAVE to have a tie breaker system I think it should be disconnected from win conditions entirely. 

An example of this is from deciphers lotr tcg tourney system. It too had 3 unique win/lose conditions that made it too hard to determine win loss differentials. Now their game was one game per round because you only needed one deck but let's say for arguements sake that we are allowing 1-1 draws in a round and both opponents walk away with even points. If at the end of the tourney there are 2 or more players with equal points a count back system was applied to determine the winner. You looked at who each player played and total up their scores, the player who played the toughest opponents won. The only way this system fell down was if everyone played everyone.

Edit: I actually liked this because it created a sense of anticipation while the players waited for the winner to be announced!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS