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

#41 Jonnyb815

Jonnyb815

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:06 PM

These are the rules deal with it.



#42 Scoob

Scoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:11 AM

To AshesFall:

Again, it does not matter how much damage you count a destroyed Heart of the Empire or Trench Run to be, those are Light Side wins and do not matter for the Dark Side tiebreaker rules. You can eliminate that section from your proposal.

----

To The Gas:

One of the things I liked about the original rules is they were a lot simpler than some of the proposals I had seen floating around. Not a lot of calculations to make (yours aren't hard to make, just each calculation to make introduces a chance for error) and really specific examples of how things work.

---

I like the idea to count damage. What I liked about the LS victory condition is you were comparing how close you came to winning when your Dark Sides lost, in essence seeing who won in a more dominating fashion. I suggested in another thread that in the case of a DS wins both tie to only count destroyed DS objectives, to again see how close the losing sides came to winning.

I think it was dmeboy who pointed out this gives the options of the tiebreaker score being only 0, 1, or 2, not a lot of granularity in the ties. So for this reason I would support total damage done. Someone who gets 7 damage on two different Defense Upgrade'd objectives, and destroys a 5 health third objective came closer to winning than someone who destroyed a 5 health objective and placed no other damage.

TL;DR

I like the idea of taking damage dealt  by the losing LS sides to DS objectives as the DS wins tiebreaker, without taking into account what your DS side does to LS objectives.

 

 



#43 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 613 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:18 AM

Scoob said:

To AshesFall:

Again, it does not matter how much damage you count a destroyed Heart of the Empire or Trench Run to be, those are Light Side wins and do not matter for the Dark Side tiebreaker rules. You can eliminate that section from your proposal.

----

To The Gas:

One of the things I liked about the original rules is they were a lot simpler than some of the proposals I had seen floating around. Not a lot of calculations to make (yours aren't hard to make, just each calculation to make introduces a chance for error) and really specific examples of how things work.

---

I like the idea to count damage. What I liked about the LS victory condition is you were comparing how close you came to winning when your Dark Sides lost, in essence seeing who won in a more dominating fashion. I suggested in another thread that in the case of a DS wins both tie to only count destroyed DS objectives, to again see how close the losing sides came to winning.

I think it was dmeboy who pointed out this gives the options of the tiebreaker score being only 0, 1, or 2, not a lot of granularity in the ties. So for this reason I would support total damage done. Someone who gets 7 damage on two different Defense Upgrade'd objectives, and destroys a 5 health third objective came closer to winning than someone who destroyed a 5 health objective and placed no other damage.

TL;DR

I like the idea of taking damage dealt  by the losing LS sides to DS objectives as the DS wins tiebreaker, without taking into account what your DS side does to LS objectives.

 

 

 

The problem is with counting damage you are assuming more damage means closer to victory.  Not even touching Heart of the Empire of Trench Run there are more then a few situations where doing more damage is not being closer to victory.  You can do 15 damage across 3 DS objectives and still be 7 overall damage away from winning (having killed no objectives) provided the right objectives or upgrades, but that would give you a tiebreaker win over 2 destroyed 4 health objectives and 4 damage on one 5 health objective for a total of only 12 damage.  Perhaps instead of total damage done it would be better to score destroyed objectives as a primary tiebreaker and then total health remaining as a secondary.

 

But still how many players have actually run a tournament under FFG rules?  I understand the reasoning behind some of the reactions, but without any data there is no basis for a request to overhaul. 



#44 Scoob

Scoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:15 AM

ScottieATF said:

The problem is with counting damage you are assuming more damage means closer to victory.  Not even touching Heart of the Empire of Trench Run there are more then a few situations where doing more damage is not being closer to victory.  You can do 15 damage across 3 DS objectives and still be 7 overall damage away from winning (having killed no objectives) provided the right objectives or upgrades, but that would give you a tiebreaker win over 2 destroyed 4 health objectives and 4 damage on one 5 health objective for a total of only 12 damage.  Perhaps instead of total damage done it would be better to score destroyed objectives as a primary tiebreaker and then total health remaining as a secondary.

This is a good point, I hadn't considered that. The issue here is that you DO need to touch Heart of the Empire or Trench Run, because going after them makes a player less competitive for your first tiebreaker. I'm intrigued by the total health remaining idea, though. Perhaps make it simply total health remaining to a victory as the tiebreaker. If you have 4 damage on three different 5 health objectives it's the same as having 7 on Trench Run. I still feel like the first deck did better overall, though I can see the point when I'm arguing for seeing who came closer to winning.

ScottieATF said:

But still how many players have actually run a tournament under FFG rules?  I understand the reasoning behind some of the reactions, but without any data there is no basis for a request to overhaul. 

I also think you're right that data might be needed before FFG would consider a change. But I'd prefer changes before the regionals start, rather than after.



#45 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,173 posts

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

Jonnyb815 said:

These are the rules deal with it.

NO U


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

#46 drkjedi35

drkjedi35

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:24 AM

I think you guys need to get in the right mindset when deckbuilding.  If you're building your decks with tiebreaks in mind then you're "planning on losing".  Build your decks to give youself the "best chance to win the game", not the best chance to win a tiebreak".






© 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