Jump to content



Photo

Fellow Sith players, we've gotta get these horrible tourney rules fixed.


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Jonnyb815

Jonnyb815

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:24 PM

With all the previews we have gotten. I believe Jedi and sith will be the weaker factions since hoth is pretty imp and rebel base. I think smugglers will get pretty strong in may same with SV. 

The problem is going to be that pAlpy and fader won't  be enough. Yes they will get help but believe they have the least support amd won't get that much coming up. 

So have fun running your sith……



#22 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:28 PM

AshesFall said:

MarthWMaster said:

 

I don't understand why the DS tiebreaker based on destroyed objectives, and not damage inflicted on objectives. There have been games I've lost as the LS in which only one more point of objective damage would have made all the difference. If the rules were changed this way, they would not punish LS players for going after Heart of the Empire, which the current rules do; nor would they favor DS decks that use Defense Upgrade, because the extra damage would still count towards the tiebreaker. 

I also feel the tiebreaker should be restricted to damage inflicted against DS objectives, because this gives the DS the option of defending their own objectives in a control-type playstyle.

 

 

Hm. Breaking ties with -damage done- to ds objectives could be a good idea I think. However, this still creates some problems just like you say. Even though you still damage the heart of the empire (or a trench run, that would probably have to count too) even if you destroy it and win, you get only 10 damage points as opposed to a "normal win" where you get 14 to 16 points. Also, counting damage done including "defense upgrade" would lessen the value of that card somewhat. Here is my suggestion after some thinking;

"Whenever a tie occurs (I.e both players won either as LS or DS), it is broken by counting the total number of damage points inflicted by the players' light side deck upon dark side objectives. If the light side won either by destroying the heart of the empire or the trench run, this counts as having inflicted 15 points of damage regardless of actual damage dealt to objectives. 

When calculating how much damage you inflicted, choose three objectives either in play or in your victory pile. Trench run may be included among these. Add together all damage inflicted up to the objectives base damage capacity.

The player that inflicted the most damage after this calculation wins the tie."

Thoughts?

Yeah, that sounds like a good balance. It also prevents a situation I'd not previously considered, that of a shrewd player putting damage on other objectives before sacking the Heart of the Empire, thereby reaching 16+ points' worth of damage in a game.


"To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable."
– Beethoven

#23 MasterDinadan

MasterDinadan

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:21 PM

I don't think there is a big issue. The Navy decks tend to destroy more objectives, but so do their opponents.

If I win as Navy, destroying 3 objectives to your 2, and you win as Sith, destroying 2 objectives while your opponent destroys only one, it works out in your favor.

Anyway, if you win with your LS deck, or if you lose with DS deck, the objective tie breaker is irrelevant. If the Sith deck wins more reliably than the Navy deck by any significant amount, then you should play it anyway.

Objective destruction should only be favored in your deck if you think that DS is significantly more likely to win each game. If LS has a reasonable chance of winning, its unlikely to come to an objective damage tie breaker anyway.



#24 JMCB

JMCB

    Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

Or you can be a pro like me and just win all of your games…


Top Tier Gaming, a community dedicated to Star Wars: The Card Game - http://toptiergaming.com
Follow us on Twitter - @toptiergaming
Like us on Facebook - facebook.com/toptiergaming
Streaming games on Twitch - twitch.tv/TeamTopTierGaming


#25 TGO

TGO

    Member

  • Members
  • 317 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:00 AM

JMCB said:

Or you can be a pro like me and just win all of your games…

 

lol



#26 Scoob

Scoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:34 AM

AshesFall said:

MarthWMaster said:

Hm. Breaking ties with -damage done- to ds objectives could be a good idea I think. However, this still creates some problems just like you say. Even though you still damage the heart of the empire (or a trench run, that would probably have to count too) even if you destroy it and win, you get only 10 damage points as opposed to a "normal win" where you get 14 to 16 points.

 

I didn't think about your proposal much yet to have comments on it, but I wanted to quote this part to point out…if you destroy Heart of the Empire or Trench Run it doesn't matter how much total damage/objectives you killed. You have a LS win happening in either case.



#27 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:45 AM

Scoob said:

AshesFall said:

 

MarthWMaster said:

Hm. Breaking ties with -damage done- to ds objectives could be a good idea I think. However, this still creates some problems just like you say. Even though you still damage the heart of the empire (or a trench run, that would probably have to count too) even if you destroy it and win, you get only 10 damage points as opposed to a "normal win" where you get 14 to 16 points.

 

 

 

I didn't think about your proposal much yet to have comments on it, but I wanted to quote this part to point out…if you destroy Heart of the Empire or Trench Run it doesn't matter how much total damage/objectives you killed. You have a LS win happening in either case.

Yeah. This thread is mostly discussing the issue of the tiebreaking method.


"To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable."
– Beethoven

#28 Scoob

Scoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:06 AM

MarthWMaster said:

Scoob said:

 

AshesFall said:

 

MarthWMaster said:

Hm. Breaking ties with -damage done- to ds objectives could be a good idea I think. However, this still creates some problems just like you say. Even though you still damage the heart of the empire (or a trench run, that would probably have to count too) even if you destroy it and win, you get only 10 damage points as opposed to a "normal win" where you get 14 to 16 points.

 

 

 

I didn't think about your proposal much yet to have comments on it, but I wanted to quote this part to point out…if you destroy Heart of the Empire or Trench Run it doesn't matter how much total damage/objectives you killed. You have a LS win happening in either case.

 

 

Yeah. This thread is mostly discussing the issue of the tiebreaking method.

 

I know. I was trying to point out that in DS tiebreakers Trench Run and Heart of the Empire are not an issue if you want to calculate total damage. Because if you only get 9 damage on them, you only got 9 damage. But if you got 10 damage (absent Defense Upgade) you win the game as the LS player. So you're no longer in DS wins both tiebreaker mode.

 

As for me, I agree that I don't like the tournament rules suggesting a specific playstyle. If the LS tiebreaker only takes into account how close the losing player was to winning, the DS tiebreaker should try to do the same.



#29 Darik

Darik

    Member

  • Members
  • 184 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:17 AM

I'd just like to echo what others have said about the favoring of aggressive play styles being a positive thing. I want to see my tournaments end in a reasonable amount of time which means I am in favor of limiting stall tactics. 

Also, I think the savvy Sith player can adjust on the fly to a more smashmouth style if he thinks he'll need help int he tiebreakers department. The real issue here is not about whether Sith can sin tournaments reliably - it is about the community as a whole getting better at playing LS, I think.



#30 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:21 AM

At this point I just have to ask because I'm a little surprised: Who here is actually finding that their games with/against Sith are taking too long, or would be taking too long in a tournament environment? 

I've found Star Wars to be one of the fastest games I've ever played, regardless of each player's affiliation.


"To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable."
– Beethoven

#31 Darik

Darik

    Member

  • Members
  • 184 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:50 AM

I have yet to have a match (we've been practicing with the tournament rules but haven't had an official event just yet at Your Local Game Store in Matthews, NC) that gets even close to time. I just think this was done in the tournament rules as a matter of forethought. The folks at FFG are planning ahead because they know much more about the types of cards/powers of cards/number of cards per faction that are going to be released than we do. I don't think matches going to time is much of an issue at this point, but the rules are structured to keep it from becoming so. 

I think that Sith's record for victory (that is a STRONG control deck) will mean lots of players still field that deck at tournaments. The tiebreaker rule slightly favoring Imperial Navy might also mean we get an encouragement for a variety of DS deck styles, too.



#32 agnos

agnos

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:21 AM

I would prefer total objective damage done as a more accurate measurement of tie breaks.  Dial then damage done for LS. 



#33 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:45 AM

agnos said:

I would prefer total objective damage done as a more accurate measurement of tie breaks.  Dial then damage done for LS. 

Yeah. Damage done (per my suggestion perhaps, or another if a better version can be found) for when both win with DS, and the dial count (essentially how close the ds got to 12) for when both win as LS. A dial count is, in my mind, ideal. It favors aggressive style decks that push the dial along by killing objectives and defensive style decks that hold out and keep the force equally. It is a -much- better way to break an LS win tie. 

So, a complete suggestion perhaps;

 

"Whenever a tie occurs (I.e both players won either as LS or DS), it is broken in the following way;

If both players won as the dark side, a tie is broken by counting the total number of damage points inflicted by the players' light side deck upon dark side objectives. If the light side won either by destroying the heart of the empire or the trench run, this counts as having inflicted 15 points of damage regardless of actual damage dealt to objectives. When calculating how much damage you inflicted, choose three objectives either in play or in your victory pile. Trench run may be included among these. Add together all damage inflicted up to the objectives base damage capacity. The player that inflicted the most damage after this calculation wins the tie.

If both players won as the light side, a tie is broken by comparing the final position of the dark side dial at the time of light side victory. The dark side player with the highest final position on the dark side dial wins the tie."

The current rules for "true ties" are functional when adapted to this context.  



#34 Holliday88

Holliday88

    Member

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:22 AM

I don't really like the tiebreaker for the DS but I'm also not a huge proponent of changing the rules before tournements even get off the ground. Let's see how it works before changing it.

 

 

But did anyone consider using the cards remaining in the deck as a tie breaker? Would that be worse than objectives destroyed?

 


North Carolina Facebook Group

Join the resource for connecting players across NC.


#35 JMCB

JMCB

    Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:29 AM

Holliday88 said:

But did anyone consider using the cards remaining in the deck as a tie breaker? Would that be worse than objectives destroyed?

While I'm not opposed to the rules as they are, I don't know why I didn't think of that. It makes sense, mainly because that is the other alternate victory condition.


Top Tier Gaming, a community dedicated to Star Wars: The Card Game - http://toptiergaming.com
Follow us on Twitter - @toptiergaming
Like us on Facebook - facebook.com/toptiergaming
Streaming games on Twitch - twitch.tv/TeamTopTierGaming


#36 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:45 AM

Holliday88 said:

 

I don't really like the tiebreaker for the DS but I'm also not a huge proponent of changing the rules before tournements even get off the ground. Let's see how it works before changing it.

 

 

But did anyone consider using the cards remaining in the deck as a tie breaker? Would that be worse than objectives destroyed?

 

 

 

While it is true that being "drawn out" is a way to loose the game, it does not at all measure performance or success. The advantage other tie breaker models have over this one is that they do. 

Edit: Not to mention the fact that this sort of tiebreaker would run contrary to game design and would be pretty ripe for abuse. The game is, in the main, designed around high card rotation. Also, consider this. You won your LS game and now you are playing the dark side. The table looks like it's probably going to be a loss for you. Instead of trying to play your best and hanging on as long as you can to maybe pull a win out of what looks like defeat, you instead stop playing cards completely. Consequently, you dont draw any cards at all. The end result is that you have more cards in your deck than your opponent did when he lost, so in essence you just "won" the tie by loosing on purpose. 



#37 Holliday88

Holliday88

    Member

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:35 PM

AshesFall said:

 

Holliday88 said:

 

I don't really like the tiebreaker for the DS but I'm also not a huge proponent of changing the rules before tournements even get off the ground. Let's see how it works before changing it.

 

 

But did anyone consider using the cards remaining in the deck as a tie breaker? Would that be worse than objectives destroyed?

 

 

 

While it is true that being "drawn out" is a way to loose the game, it does not at all measure performance or success. The advantage other tie breaker models have over this one is that they do. 

Edit: Not to mention the fact that this sort of tiebreaker would run contrary to game design and would be pretty ripe for abuse. The game is, in the main, designed around high card rotation. Also, consider this. You won your LS game and now you are playing the dark side. The table looks like it's probably going to be a loss for you. Instead of trying to play your best and hanging on as long as you can to maybe pull a win out of what looks like defeat, you instead stop playing cards completely. Consequently, you dont draw any cards at all. The end result is that you have more cards in your deck than your opponent did when he lost, so in essence you just "won" the tie by loosing on purpose. 

 

 

 

In your example you'd use the LS tie breakers because both players would win as LS. What I mean is when both players win as DS. One wins at +23, the other wins at +15, the player who won at +23 gets the extra point.

 

Edit: the more I think about it the more I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't measure performance or success. Because you are required to draw at the start of your turn, you are encouraged to end the game as quickly and as efficiently as you are able. 


North Carolina Facebook Group

Join the resource for connecting players across NC.


#38 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:45 AM

Holliday88 said:

In your example you'd use the LS tie breakers because both players would win as LS. What I mean is when both players win as DS. One wins at +23, the other wins at +15, the player who won at +23 gets the extra point.

 

Edit: the more I think about it the more I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't measure performance or success. Because you are required to draw at the start of your turn, you are encouraged to end the game as quickly and as efficiently as you are able. 

Ah, gotcha. You mean that you count the cards left in the deck with the winning faction. 

The problem with this, then, is that your relative "success" with your non winning deck becomes irrelevant. it is, in my opinion, a good idea to break ties by the most successful "loosing" deck (you did both win with the other faction after all). 

Using a model that relies on cards left also impacts deck that draw a lot of cards in a bad way, for example a rebel deck centered around mission briefings and leias set with stolen plans and "you're my only hope". This reintroduces in some way what the tie breaker rules should strive to avoid as much as possible, that is impacting deck builds and gameplay styles. That why I believe that ties should be broken via the method that already wins the game for the factions (objective damage and ds dial), without putting emphasis on -how- that is done (how quickly, whether by destroying objectives as ds or holding the force and defending, and so on)

 



#39 Holliday88

Holliday88

    Member

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:21 AM

AshesFall said:

Holliday88 said:

 

In your example you'd use the LS tie breakers because both players would win as LS. What I mean is when both players win as DS. One wins at +23, the other wins at +15, the player who won at +23 gets the extra point.

 

Edit: the more I think about it the more I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't measure performance or success. Because you are required to draw at the start of your turn, you are encouraged to end the game as quickly and as efficiently as you are able. 

 

 

Ah, gotcha. You mean that you count the cards left in the deck with the winning faction. 

The problem with this, then, is that your relative "success" with your non winning deck becomes irrelevant. it is, in my opinion, a good idea to break ties by the most successful "loosing" deck (you did both win with the other faction after all). 

Using a model that relies on cards left also impacts deck that draw a lot of cards in a bad way, for example a rebel deck centered around mission briefings and leias set with stolen plans and "you're my only hope". This reintroduces in some way what the tie breaker rules should strive to avoid as much as possible, that is impacting deck builds and gameplay styles. That why I believe that ties should be broken via the method that already wins the game for the factions (objective damage and ds dial), without putting emphasis on -how- that is done (how quickly, whether by destroying objectives as ds or holding the force and defending, and so on)

 

 

LS tie breaker uses the Death Star dial. I thought the conversation was talking about changing the DS tie breaker?


North Carolina Facebook Group

Join the resource for connecting players across NC.


#40 The Gas

The Gas

    Member

  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:57 PM

I feel like Heart and Trench are SUPPOSED to be all-or-nothing gambles. If you go for the (theoretically at least) easy victory and still lose, you deserve to walk away empty-handed.  Still, some way of measuring closeness-to-victory as Light (more granular than simply destroyed DS objective count, since that will just continue the tie too often) would certainly be preferable to what we're currently dealing with.  I still prefer the score-based system I outlined in the first post (as it rewards strong play across both sides without favoring any specific faction or play style, and allows extreme granularity in ranking, such that a complete shut-out hurts your standing much more than a narrow loss), but how about this:  for each Dark objective destroyed in your Light game, you get Objective Destruction Points (ODP) equal to twice its damage capacity, then one additional ODP for every damage remaining on undestroyed Dark objectives (including Trench Run). Whoever got more ODP wins the tie. (Light tiebreaker remains as-is.)






© 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