Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mattr0polis

Winning Conditions

Recommended Posts

The Dark Side wins if their counter gets to 12.

The Light Side wins if they destroy three objectives.

Does anyone know if there are other win conditions though? I've already seen some confusion on if a player (or just the Dark Side) loses if their draw deck runs out.

But also, can the Dark Side win if they destroy three objectives? Or do they just keep getting that cumulative bonus of moving the counter up each time they destroy one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the designers told me that either side would lose if they couldn't draw. The dark side does not automatically win by destroying 3 objectives, but in practicality probably will have (and at 4 will definitely have won).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dbmeboy said:

One of the designers told me that either side would lose if they couldn't draw. The dark side does not automatically win by destroying 3 objectives, but in practicality probably will have (and at 4 will definitely have won).

Correct.  When the Dark Side destroys a Light Side Objective, they get a +1 to their Death Star Track.  The second Objective defeated adds +2, and so on, so in effect, by defeating the 4th Light Side Objective, they should have won (+10 to the dial, +however many turns went by, not likely less than 2).  The only other thing I could see is a card or cards allowing the Light Side to roll back the Death Star dial.

So to summarize;

 

Light Side: Defeat 3 Dark Side Objectives or deplete the Dark Side deck

Dark Side: Get to 12 points on the Death Star dial or deplete the Light Side deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MarthWMaster said:

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

The Death Star track looks like it's been put in there to force interaction by having the Light Side get their act together quickly and start going for Objectives.  It also means that Light Side can't play 100% offense and leave their own Objectives unguarded, lest the Dark Side player start picking them off and advancing even further.

Maybe there'll be rushdown strategies for both sides that forget defense and just steamroll the opposition?  Either way, it means the game has a definitive number of turns involved, 12 maximum, unless cards come out that allow the Light Side to roll back the Death Star track.

The difference may just be more thematic.  Like, the Empire is slowly dominating the galaxy, and the Rebels must stop them before they can complete their plans.  The opposite for the Dark Side is that if they can manage to strike a huge blow to the Rebel war effort along the way, they will eliminate their only opposition and gain control that much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MarthWMaster said:

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

Yeah, the Death Star counter is the only thing that makes it feel like a Star Wars game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

herozeromes said:

MarthWMaster said:

 

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

 

 

Yeah, the Death Star counter is the only thing that makes it feel like a Star Wars game.

I disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScottieATF said:

 

herozeromes said:

 

MarthWMaster said:

 

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

 

 

Yeah, the Death Star counter is the only thing that makes it feel like a Star Wars game.

 

 

I disagree

 

 Tell us what you like about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

herozeromes said:

ScottieATF said:

 

herozeromes said:

 

MarthWMaster said:

 

I wonder why they chose to give each side a different win condition. It seems odd to me somehow, like I'm just questioning how bad it would have been to have the Dark Side win the same way, by destroying three Light Side objectives. If the game had been more asymmetrical I'd understand it, but right now it just feels like an afterthought, like when they were finished with the game, somebody went, "But wait - we didn't put any Star Wars stuff into the game mechanics!" And so they added the Dark Side track and the Force counter to turn their generic system into an authentic Star Wars experience.

 

 

Yeah, the Death Star counter is the only thing that makes it feel like a Star Wars game.

 

 

I disagree

 

 Tell us what you like about the game.

And what makes it feel like a Star Wars game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.

I am new over here, but giving the level of excitement I have about this game I couldn't just sit and watch. I was a hardcore STARWARS Decipher player and I've been expecting a good SW card game game since then, and this one seems to be finally fulfilling the expectations. Or at least, most of them.

Sticking to the thread, I think it is a good idea to have different winning conditions given the differences between Alliance and Empire, but what I think is not so good (given I do not have all the information I would want about the game) is that both conditions do not share a same principle of action. Thus, one is active (destroying 3 objectives) and the other is passive (wait for the dial to hit 12).

With this in mind, if you want to be competitive I only see one option of deck for each faction: Alliance/Light must be rush and Empire/Dark must be stall (what I think, by the way, is much easier given that you not only start the game but have cards like Stasis, Choke and Lightning). This is, in my opinion, a very poor way of designing a strategy for each side, way worse than the "pod" thing for deck building. Why Dark would attack and risk the game only to speed the dial when the dial will hit 12 sooner or later? The Dark side player has only to play characters, commit them to the Force and wait with a full defense and a ton of "direct damage" (I insist, that if I am not skipping something - what I would love to-) to win. And even worse, given that if you launch a full attack with the Light side, the retaliation with a couple of weenies from the Dark side can just finish the game destroying one of your objectives (while you can do nothing to backtrack the dial).

In my opinion, thematic differences in the gameplay should come from the "nature" of the cards in each side, and not from the winning conditions. I remember the evil characters in Decipher's LotR, each faction with a different kind of attack and strategy (Nazgul were fierce, Uruk damage +1, Sauron had direct damage and Moria swarming). This I think should be the way, specially having three different factions on each side of the Force (and no, I do not see Jabba building a Death Star - maybe 12 tentacles for the Sarlacc?-).

Thanks for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andur Saibot said:

With this in mind, if you want to be competitive I only see one option of deck for each faction: Alliance/Light must be rush and Empire/Dark must be stall (what I think, by the way, is much easier given that you not only start the game but have cards like Stasis, Choke and Lightning). This is, in my opinion, a very poor way of designing a strategy for each side, way worse than the "pod" thing for deck building. Why Dark would attack and risk the game only to speed the dial when the dial will hit 12 sooner or later? The Dark side player has only to play characters, commit them to the Force and wait with a full defense and a ton of "direct damage" (I insist, that if I am not skipping something - what I would love to-) to win. And even worse, given that if you launch a full attack with the Light side, the retaliation with a couple of weenies from the Dark side can just finish the game destroying one of your objectives (while you can do nothing to backtrack the dial).

It could still be to your advantage as the Dark Side to go after Light Side Objectives to advance your dial.  If anything, by turtling up and drawing the game out, you're taking the risk that the Light Side might be able to mount a good enough offensive to take you out.  Given that their primary goal is to knock out 3 of your Objectives in 12 turns, you're better off taking turns away from them by beating their Objectives.

That's just another point of view, but it highlights how as the Dark Side player you really have to different ways to play the game, and that's not even looking at the card pools at your disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andur Saibot said:

(and no, I do not see Jabba building a Death Star - maybe 12 tentacles for the Sarlacc?-).

 

I always feel a need to point out the novel Darksaber, one of my absolute favourites, where Durga the Hutt builds a streamlined Death Star (or tries to, anyway). Could be an awesome theme if they ever branch into doing New Republic decks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spalanzani said:

 

Andur Saibot said:

 

(and no, I do not see Jabba building a Death Star - maybe 12 tentacles for the Sarlacc?-).

 

 

I always feel a need to point out the novel Darksaber, one of my absolute favourites, where Durga the Hutt builds a streamlined Death Star (or tries to, anyway). Could be an awesome theme if they ever branch into doing New Republic decks!!!

 

 

Yeah, that is awesome. Though also, I think in one of those demo videos, they said that it's not necessarily the Death Star being built but more "the Dark Side gaining influence over the galaxy" and when it reaches 12, they've reached enough influence to control the galaxy or to crush the Rebellion or to complete one of their main evil plans, etc.

The counter just happens to be Death Star shaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know my initial boredom/frustration over the gencon 2012 demo has been taken over(a little anyway) by the potential i see in the game. I like the art, deckbuilding/podbuilding and the "edge batlle".

But i'm wondering, has the DS an easier time destroying objectives? If you would by chance be playing the first one to score 5 objectives would any side have an unfair advantage? Maybe someone who played the demo would have some insight in this. Currently the winning conditions seem to hinder gameplay rather than encourage different playstyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattr0polis said:

spalanzani said:

 

Andur Saibot said:

 

(and no, I do not see Jabba building a Death Star - maybe 12 tentacles for the Sarlacc?-).

 

 

I always feel a need to point out the novel Darksaber, one of my absolute favourites, where Durga the Hutt builds a streamlined Death Star (or tries to, anyway). Could be an awesome theme if they ever branch into doing New Republic decks!!!

 

 

Yeah, that is awesome. Though also, I think in one of those demo videos, they said that it's not necessarily the Death Star being built but more "the Dark Side gaining influence over the galaxy" and when it reaches 12, they've reached enough influence to control the galaxy or to crush the Rebellion or to complete one of their main evil plans, etc.

The counter just happens to be Death Star shaped.

I suppose the Death Star is as good a metaphor for the growing influence of the Dark Side as any! I'll start to think of it as simply a DS counter, then! 

Is it just me though, or do 12 turns seem to make for a very short game? I mean, it is a bit overly-proscribed, this whole game, don't you think? Does the Light Side have any way to pull the DS dial back down? Does it go down when a Dark Side objective is destroyed? I can't recall now (and don't have the time to watch the whole video again) If it represents the Dark Side as a growing influence in the galaxy, then surely every time you play Luke, or even Yoda, that should be seen as a setback for the growth of the dark, which in game terms would translate to stopping the dial moving up at the very least, don't you think? Destroying a Dark Side objective would also throw a spanner in the works for galactic dominion, so should also stop the dial, or even put it back? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mattr0polis said:

 

Andur Saibot said:

 

(while you can do nothing to backtrack the dial).

 

 

We don't know any of the cards for sure at this point. There easily could be Light Side cards that do things like this.

 

 

 

Of course. I insist in not having enough information nor specifics about many cards in the game and that I would love this to be THE GAME. The rush versus stall mandatory construction of the decks thing is just a first impression based on what I believe is, given the victory conditions, a must in the strategies of each side, which I sadly think is unbalanced favoring the DS and has not many variations per side. And, again, with a solid control of the balance of the Force (a slow killer with Nightsisters), a Vader and a couple bodyguards (plus the tons of killer events + There is no escape) you can easily win the war by attrition (in less than 12 turns) even with a gambit of one or two of your objectives in case the light side has managed to build a ferocious line of attack. And, if not, you have also the chance to obliterate the light by attacking if you manage to get a ferocious offensive and your opponent does not.

Unbalanced and not very imaginative strategies by the moment, that's all, because of the victory conditions. Easily fixable IMO. And I hope they do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Also, wouldn't it make more sense if you're main goal was to complete your own objectives instead of destroying your opponents. I guess that at the start of your turn when you get resources for your objectives is a metaphor for this but still… I like to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

 Also, wouldn't it make more sense if you're main goal was to complete your own objectives instead of destroying your opponents. I guess that at the start of your turn when you get resources for your objectives is a metaphor for this but still… I like to complain.

The naming of the cards as "Objectives"  is probably meant in the adversarial sense, like my "Heart of the Empire" Objective card, is actually your "objective" or "target" to attack.  As well, like you mentioned, they give you resources, and some other kind of help, so it represents an asset that would be a huge loss for your opponent to have destroyed on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cleardave said:

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

 

 Also, wouldn't it make more sense if you're main goal was to complete your own objectives instead of destroying your opponents. I guess that at the start of your turn when you get resources for your objectives is a metaphor for this but still… I like to complain.

 

 

The naming of the cards as "Objectives"  is probably meant in the adversarial sense, like my "Heart of the Empire" Objective card, is actually your "objective" or "target" to attack.  As well, like you mentioned, they give you resources, and some other kind of help, so it represents an asset that would be a huge loss for your opponent to have destroyed on them.

I get the abstraction but i'm still not diggin' it.

Maybe their can be "objectives" that you must defend or you'll lose the game like heart of the empire or secret rebel base. You gain alot of resources but with a risk. Then their is objectives like journey to dagobah and jedi training wich you try to advance and complete. When during your refresh phase you have no more objectives to draw and have no more to advance & complete you win the game. I rather have a mechanic like this instead of the DS counter.

Ofcourse i'm just brainstorming… Maybe it's to hard change at this stage of development or to hard to balance but i can see alot of thematic fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

Maybe their can be "objectives" that you must defend or you'll lose the game like heart of the empire or secret rebel base. You gain alot of resources but with a risk. Then their is objectives like journey to dagobah and jedi training wich you try to advance and complete. When during your refresh phase you have no more objectives to draw and have no more to advance & complete you win the game. I rather have a mechanic like this instead of the DS counter.

Ofcourse i'm just brainstorming… Maybe it's to hard change at this stage of development or to hard to balance but i can see alot of thematic fun.

Yeah, I still hope we might see objectives like this, if not in the core box, then in future expansions. There does seem, to me, to be a lot of fun that can be had with these cards, the way I think I understand the game to be at the minute. I'm just hoping FFG will use all these demos to really fine-tune what they have and, if not add this kinda thing into the game from the off, at least include something in future games. 

Something like completing your own objectives while your opponent keeps targeting them, in particular, can definitely add another layer to the game, to my mind. Some hope for this kinda thing has sprung up when you bear in mind what the designers over on Warhammer: Invasion are doing with their game. The core box as it stands is a pretty quick game, I've had games last about 20 minutes (or less, with my now-famous poor card draw), which does seem really fast for me when I want more depth to my games. But while the first few cycles and deluxes have just given an increased card pool with some increased synergies or whatever, the current cycle and the planned next cycle of battle packs are focusing on specific aspects of the gameplay and adding that kinda depth into them, so that it doesn't become a race between people to get the most units out to attack/defend, you can actually spend a lot of time building up your strategy beforehand. Which makes for a better experience, in my book. So hopefully we'll see something similar here, where you aren't just trying to race to the finish. 

Perhaps…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spalanzani said:

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

 

Maybe their can be "objectives" that you must defend or you'll lose the game like heart of the empire or secret rebel base. You gain alot of resources but with a risk. Then their is objectives like journey to dagobah and jedi training wich you try to advance and complete. When during your refresh phase you have no more objectives to draw and have no more to advance & complete you win the game. I rather have a mechanic like this instead of the DS counter.

Ofcourse i'm just brainstorming… Maybe it's to hard change at this stage of development or to hard to balance but i can see alot of thematic fun.

 

 

Yeah, I still hope we might see objectives like this, if not in the core box, then in future expansions. There does seem, to me, to be a lot of fun that can be had with these cards, the way I think I understand the game to be at the minute. I'm just hoping FFG will use all these demos to really fine-tune what they have and, if not add this kinda thing into the game from the off, at least include something in future games. 

Something like completing your own objectives while your opponent keeps targeting them, in particular, can definitely add another layer to the game, to my mind. Some hope for this kinda thing has sprung up when you bear in mind what the designers over on Warhammer: Invasion are doing with their game. The core box as it stands is a pretty quick game, I've had games last about 20 minutes (or less, with my now-famous poor card draw), which does seem really fast for me when I want more depth to my games. But while the first few cycles and deluxes have just given an increased card pool with some increased synergies or whatever, the current cycle and the planned next cycle of battle packs are focusing on specific aspects of the gameplay and adding that kinda depth into them, so that it doesn't become a race between people to get the most units out to attack/defend, you can actually spend a lot of time building up your strategy beforehand. Which makes for a better experience, in my book. So hopefully we'll see something similar here, where you aren't just trying to race to the finish. 

Perhaps…

For those that don't know, or don't remember, this is how Star Wars CCG evolved.  Getting your brilliantly-crafted deck up and running still relied entirely on the luck of card draw.  When Jabba's Palace came out, 3 years after Premiere, we got the Starting Interrupt, which lets you select an Effect to deploy on the board right away.  This greatly helped, when the only thing you knew for sure you could have at the start of the game was a location of your choosing.

Special Edition took this further when they introduced the Objective card type, again, 3 years after Premiere.

The point is, while Star Wars CCG was certainly fun in its own way, prior to Special Edition, it became a lot more streamlined and fun from Special Edition onwards, which is ironic considering the films seem to get the opposite response from the viewership.

So, we can expect the Core Set to pretty functional, and that FFG will release future expansions that add more mechanics to the gameplay as we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't like the idea of a turn counter. I'd be happy to see it gone in favor of something else for instance specific objectives or old fashion points scoring when the deck run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...