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

#1 The Gas

The Gas

    Member

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

As it stands, only Navy decks are tournament viable for the Dark Side.  The tiebreak by objective destruction utterly hoses our slow and steady Sith decks; we worry far more about keeping the Balance in our favor and attack objectives only when doing so will win us the game, or we've managed to get the board so heavily in our favor that we can do so without fear of reprisal.

 

Before the official rules were released, my local store was using their own system which, while not perfect, did not commit the unforgivable sin of granting clear favor to one faction.  It was score-drven - when playing Dark Side, your score was your dial position, when Light, you got 4 points per DS objective destroyed.  In either case, a win was worth a maximum of 12 even if you somehow managed to go over.  I never saw anyone tie for final score after three rounds, so I don't know how they would have handled that.

 

I hearby petition that these rules (with an appropriate final score tiebreak) be adopted as the official tournament rules, so as not to unfairly favor objective destruction over Balance and therefore Navy over Sith. All who agree with me, please post your support, and perhaps together we can right this wrong!



#2 Jonnyb815

Jonnyb815

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:02 PM

Just win your game and win with your lightside problem solved. 

 

The sith are good give it a break.



#3 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,408 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 12:45 AM

The Sith can also run Heart of the Empire and bait the LS into attacking it instead of destroying multiple objectives. Assuming that you still win, that ends up being zero objectives destroyed by your opponent that game. Also, I pretty much always end up destroying 2 objectives with my Sith deck…

#4 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:46 AM

The Gas said:

As it stands, only Navy decks are tournament viable for the Dark Side.  The tiebreak by objective destruction utterly hoses our slow and steady Sith decks; we worry far more about keeping the Balance in our favor and attack objectives only when doing so will win us the game, or we've managed to get the board so heavily in our favor that we can do so without fear of reprisal.

 

Before the official rules were released, my local store was using their own system which, while not perfect, did not commit the unforgivable sin of granting clear favor to one faction.  It was score-drven - when playing Dark Side, your score was your dial position, when Light, you got 4 points per DS objective destroyed.  In either case, a win was worth a maximum of 12 even if you somehow managed to go over.  I never saw anyone tie for final score after three rounds, so I don't know how they would have handled that.

 

I hearby petition that these rules (with an appropriate final score tiebreak) be adopted as the official tournament rules, so as not to unfairly favor objective destruction over Balance and therefore Navy over Sith. All who agree with me, please post your support, and perhaps together we can right this wrong!

Dude. Stop getting so hurt. If you're that worried about a tie-breaker point struggle… don't lose as the DS. That particular scoring only comes into play if both players win only with their LS decks. If you're winning with your Sith deck, you shouldn't have to worry too much about it. Plus, if a tournament is coming down that close that they have to compare players' destroyed objective scores to determine the ultimate winner, and you're coming up short, maybe you should change your strategy. I play a sith deck that owns on objective destruction through taking out the opposition and casually waltzing in and blowing their s*** up.


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


#5 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,326 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:36 AM

I don't agree at all. The rules are fine as is. I play Sith pretty much exclusively and have no problem destroying objectives. 



#6 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,255 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:10 AM

stormwolf27 said:

The Gas said:

 

As it stands, only Navy decks are tournament viable for the Dark Side.  The tiebreak by objective destruction utterly hoses our slow and steady Sith decks; we worry far more about keeping the Balance in our favor and attack objectives only when doing so will win us the game, or we've managed to get the board so heavily in our favor that we can do so without fear of reprisal.

 

Before the official rules were released, my local store was using their own system which, while not perfect, did not commit the unforgivable sin of granting clear favor to one faction.  It was score-drven - when playing Dark Side, your score was your dial position, when Light, you got 4 points per DS objective destroyed.  In either case, a win was worth a maximum of 12 even if you somehow managed to go over.  I never saw anyone tie for final score after three rounds, so I don't know how they would have handled that.

 

I hearby petition that these rules (with an appropriate final score tiebreak) be adopted as the official tournament rules, so as not to unfairly favor objective destruction over Balance and therefore Navy over Sith. All who agree with me, please post your support, and perhaps together we can right this wrong!

 

 

Dude. Stop getting so hurt. If you're that worried about a tie-breaker point struggle… don't lose as the DS. That particular scoring only comes into play if both players win only with their LS decks.

Nope. If both players win as DS, the tiebreaker is objectives destroyed.



#7 divinityofnumber

divinityofnumber

    Member

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:45 AM

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 


Star Wars LCG: FFG EC Regional 2014 - Top 4; Star Wars LCG: FFG Event Center Store Championship 2014 - Top 4; FFG Event Center Season One 2014 - Minneapolis Regional Game Night - Top 4; May the 4th Be With You 2013 - Second Chance Tournament Champion; A Game of Thrones LCG: Days of Ice and Fire 2013 - Joust Top 16

abUse the Force author on CardGameDB.com


#8 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:56 AM

divinityofnumber said:

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 

I would tend to disagree. Right now, the most powerful builds are Jedi and Sith Control, and the tournament rules hardly change their effectiveness. I fully expect Luke, Han, Vader, and Palpatine to show up at top tables in tournament play.



#9 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:37 AM

While I completely favor the idea that FFG would encourage a style of tournament play that is aggressive versus sitting back and winning, I don't see it that way. I think FFG has created a very good balance to tournament play.

I suggest a ton of playtesting with the current and upcoming expansions and be patient and let more cards adjust the game play and not go and try to change the rules so hastely.

 


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#10 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 737 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:38 AM

divinityofnumber said:

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 

divinityofnumber said:

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 

The tournament rules may, slightly, but the cards and the game rules do not for the DS.  Sith primary decks are just the stronger of the two main DS affiliations at this point.



#11 AngryMojo

AngryMojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 90 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:55 PM

divinityofnumber said:

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 

I for one find this a good thing.  And I'll still bring my Sith deck, I run it very aggressively.  Both Dark Side factions can be played from either an agressive or defensive posture, and I've found in both circumstances that finishing the game early and not allowing my opponent to get a foothold only benefits me.



#12 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,255 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 05:58 AM

AngryMojo said:

divinityofnumber said:

 

The tournament rules do favor aggro DS builds. As it stands, I wouldn't even consider running pure Sith at a tournament. The environment that FFG has created favors aggro. 

 

I for one find this a good thing.

 

Why do you think so?



#13 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 06:09 AM

I personally feel that this tournament rules set is a pretty bad idea. If only for the simple reason that it interferes with what sort of decks you can realistically build and bring to a tournament. As has been said before, there are only three outcomes when playing in a tournament;

One player wins both games. 

Both players win as DS

Both players win as LS

Breaking ties with number of objectives destroyed as DS is -wong-. It clearly favours aggressive playstyles and builds for the DS side. How to do it then?

One idea (rough outline, not fully thought through yet) is to time the amount of actual DS -turns- it takes to win. This takes force control into account more effectively, I.e. a ds deck that holds the force throughout a game wins in 1+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 7 turns. Destroying a single objective shortens that to 6 turns. A deck that isnt concerned with the force, but attacks a lot, destroying say three objectives (6 dsdial points) would win in 1+1+1+1+1+1 six turns.

The mechanics unfortunately make it hard to break ties between ds double wins. Perhaps they too should be broken by the performance of the LS deck, objectives destroyed? Any other ideas?



#14 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,255 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 06:32 AM

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. And 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 would give the DS the option of defending their own objectives in a control-type playstyle, an option that does not exist as per these tournament rules.



#15 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 06:45 AM

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?



#16 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 737 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

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. And 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 would give the DS the option of defending their own objectives in a control-type playstyle, an option that does not exist as per these tournament rules.

Because until the objective is destroyed all the damage in the world doesn't matter.  Damaging objectives is not a goal destroying them is, and until that goal is reached you haven't scored anything yet.



#17 D0CT0R

D0CT0R

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 10:57 AM

I have to say that I manage to destroy two or three objectives using Sith so cannot see too much of a problem with the rules as they stand.



#18 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:24 PM

 

ScottieATF said:

Because until the objective is destroyed all the damage in the world doesn't matter.  Damaging objectives is not a goal destroying them is, and until that goal is reached you haven't scored anything yet.

For winning, that is clearly the case. And approproate. However, as a tiebreaker counting damage does provide a much better measurement. Also, it takes care of several problems with the "you only get points for destroying objectives" model. The current way to break ties is simply too narrow and clumsy.

D0CT0R said:

I have to say that I manage to destroy two or three objectives using Sith so cannot see too much of a problem with the rules as they stand.

The problem isnt that it isnt possible in any way shape or form to destroy objectives as sith or ds in general. The problem is that these rules enforce a certain playstyle and deck build. Tournament rules should never straightjacket the players. Is it really so hard to just change the system?



#19 AngryMojo

AngryMojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 90 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

MarthWMaster said:

Why do you think so?

Having run numerous tournaments I've found tournament rules that encourage agressive play wind up wrapping up smoother than those that favor defensive play.  You're less likely to have players time out, you wind up with fewer draws, and people just wind up having more fun when it's not just people playing a waiting game.

 

I've also found that in timed formats, if agressive play is not rewarded then you wind up getting lots of stall tactics.  If you want a good example of this, take a look at WarMachine by Privateer Press and their top-tier tournament results for the first year.  Every one of the top ten spots was filled by the same faction, using the same leader figure.  It was, go figure, the defensive faction with the stall-tactic leader.  This isn't to say tournaments and games that favor agressive play can't have the same problems, but I've found that when the clock is against the players the game winds up being more interesting overall.

 

Besides, it's not like the tournament rules as they stand favor agressive play that much, if you win both rounds you never even resort to the objective tie-breaker.



#20 MasterJediAdam

MasterJediAdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 676 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 01:46 PM

I have to agree with the mob on this one … the rules aren't a problem, yet.

Aggressive decks are favored, but that does not mean that a defensive control deck cannot do well in an organized tournament.

Give the tournament rules some time, collect some data, and come back to the community with it. If it still points in the direction you posit, then hopefuly it will gain traction …


Welcome to the machine!





© 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