No, I'm talking about this:

If a player has two copies of the same upgrade on a

character, and both of those upgrade dice are in their

dice pool when they have to discard an upgrade from

play, the player can choose which die to remove and set

aside.

Actually, this lines up with the basic rules, which state that you only track which dice came from which character, not from which specific card.

So you have not read the tournament rules, ok, here it is for you:

When a player controls multiple cards or effects that use a

die with the same collector number, he or she must designate

the specific card or effect that each die in their dice pool

corresponds to.

No, I'm talking about this:

If a player has two copies of the same upgrade on a

character, and both of those upgrade dice are in their

dice pool when they have to discard an upgrade from

play, the player can choose which die to remove and set

aside.

Actually, this lines up with the basic rules, which state that you only track which dice came from which character, not from which specific card.

So you have not read the tournament rules, ok, here it is for you:

When a player controls multiple cards or effects that use a

die with the same collector number, he or she must designate

the specific card or effect that each die in their dice pool

corresponds to.

No need to be snarky, just copy the paragraph you actually mean next time.

But realistically, there's no possible tiebreaker that won't favor one style of deck over another, and damage count seems to punish the fewest core mechanics.

IMO, draws would be better than forcing a tie-breaker to get a game winner.

But realistically, there's no possible tiebreaker that won't favor one style of deck over another, and damage count seems to punish the fewest core mechanics.

IMO, draws would be better than forcing a tie-breaker to get a game winner.

Then you have to deal with intentional draws, which FFG is no longer doing.

Everyone says that, what do you have to "deal" with with ID's? I played Magic for years and never once saw people complaining about ID's (maybe they do now, I don't know?) but it seems like a lot of people that play FFG games think they are the devil's work. They aren't.

But realistically, there's no possible tiebreaker that won't favor one style of deck over another, and damage count seems to punish the fewest core mechanics.

IMO, draws would be better than forcing a tie-breaker to get a game winner.

Then you have to deal with intentional draws, which FFG is no longer doing.

Everyone says that, what do you have to "deal" with with ID's? I played Magic for years and never once saw people complaining about ID's (maybe they do now, I don't know?) but it seems like a lot of people that play FFG games think they are the devil's work. They aren't.

The issue is that FFG insists on doing top cuts even for relatively small player counts, and ID allow players to easily secure positions within the cut.

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

I realize all that, my point was that FFG made the change because of player complaints, right?

I was hoping they'd revisit it for this game, especially because matches are best of 1. To me, forcing a win on to one player is just as much muckery with the standings as an ID would be.

Losing a hard fought game because your opponent did one more damage than you? Ugh.

My problem with not having draws is that it makes certain archetypes and character teams less desirable to play in tournaments, especially with the short round time in Swiss. It heavily favors aggro.

The top 8 at an X-Wing tournament realized that if they all intentionally drew, they'd all make the cut, whereas the 7th and 8th place players could have been bumped by the 9th and 10th place players if the games had been played. It essentially rendered the final Swiss round meaningless. That really got the ball rolling against the intentional draw.

He's talking about the former Warhammer 40k Conquest LCG at Gencon 2015. Guy who initially won the event would draw 3 cards every time he felt he was in a bad spot. When he was winning he would play straight. No one caught it until the stream was posted. He got iirc a 7 year ban from all FFG events.

Fantastic. I just read that CGDB thread. Good read, highly amusing.

5 year ban, but still, considering what happened to Conquest, a very harsh penalty. Deserved, but harsh.

Players may sleeve their characters and battlefield, but they must use different sleeves from their deck.

Ok... why?

So you buy more/different FFG card sleeves...

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

I realize all that, my point was that FFG made the change because of player complaints, right?

I was hoping they'd revisit it for this game, especially because matches are best of 1. To me, forcing a win on to one player is just as much muckery with the standings as an ID would be.

Losing a hard fought game because your opponent did one more damage than you? Ugh.

My problem with not having draws is that it makes certain archetypes and character teams less desirable to play in tournaments, especially with the short round time in Swiss. It heavily favors aggro.

The idea that 2 players who had not yet secured their position in the cut could do so by not playing and knock out a player or 2 who played all their games bothers me far more than losing a tie breaker by 1 damage.

What archetypes and character teams less desirable to play because you can't intentionally draw?

Optional deck cutting. No transparent sleeves, no note-taking, no draws. Bad rules are bad.

If you want to cut or shuffle your opponents deck the choice is yours. I can't say I don't want you to cut and not offer. Some people don't like cutting. Typically I don't.

FFG doesn't allow transparent sleeves due to promos sometimes having a slightly different appearance than normal cards. Also this helps ceate a uniform card back. If I recall this is fairly standard for most games. Why are we complaining over this part?

FFG has never allowed note taking in their card games.

FFG has been getting away from draws in card games for awhile now (last 6 months to a year).

I'm not sure why there is an issue with any of things you listed.

Maintaining a fair game state is everyone's responsibility. Just like making sure that the game rules are followed, both players should be ensuring that each other's decks are completely randomized. Cutting or shuffling your opponent's deck (and vice versa) isn't merely a courtesy.

FFG makes and markets transparent sleeves, and the CCGs that I've played don't require opaque ones to be used. Sounds like they need to do a better job of making promos, not ban the items I actually paid them for.

FFG has never done a lot of things, creating and promoting a competitive CCG among them. There are certain instances where note-taking is viable, like when you look at or reveal cards from your opponent's hand. Those reveals effectively become open information at that point, so why should it become a game of forced memorization instead?

There's a lot to be said about draws, and I see that conversation in progress already. Suffice it to say, they're borrowing too much from other games where those alternate tie-breakers are a necessity. This is a CCG; draws are fine, and they need to move away from their stigma and adopt a better system, because remaining life or cards disproportionately effects perfectly valid deck-building options. Oh, and it's dumb.

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

I realize all that, my point was that FFG made the change because of player complaints, right?

I was hoping they'd revisit it for this game, especially because matches are best of 1. To me, forcing a win on to one player is just as much muckery with the standings as an ID would be.

Losing a hard fought game because your opponent did one more damage than you? Ugh.

My problem with not having draws is that it makes certain archetypes and character teams less desirable to play in tournaments, especially with the short round time in Swiss. It heavily favors aggro.

The idea that 2 players who had not yet secured their position in the cut could do so by not playing and knock out a player or 2 who played all their games bothers me far more than losing a tie breaker by 1 damage.

What archetypes and character teams less desirable to play because you can't intentionally draw?

Anything that isn't aggro, the tie breaker rules heavily favor aggro style decks.

And its not the intentional draw that makes them less desirable it's the tie-breaker rule and the short round time (no draw), IDs are just the discussion at hand because it's the reason people give for their being no draws at all.

It could all not matter if 35 minutes is enough time, but if a lot of games are going to time and being decided by damage done it's going to be annoying.

Even in MTG your ability to cut and/or shuffle your opponents deck has nothing to do with your responsibility to ensure their deck is randomized. If they present a deck that isn't sufficiently randomized to you, even though you have the ability to properly randomize it for them, you are still suppose to call a judge over. They can and will be sanctioned for not randomizing their deck orooerly, even though you also have the ability to do it for them.

FFG also makes and markets many other games that don't have competitive play or require a draw deck with its order unknown to players. Clear sleeves fit in all of those cases. They don't in this one, not just because of promos but general irregularities that occur during their printing process.

Your concerned about event integrity being breeched in one situation by not mandating that a player cut or shuffle their opponents deck, but in the next breath are dismissive of the fact that FFG acknowledges that there are irregularities in their printings, and takes steps to ensure that doesn't much with the tournament integrity by requiring opaque sleeves. It isn't like other companies don't restrict certain kinds of sleeves either.

Personally, I think rounds should be best two out of three anyways. If 1-0 is a decisive win and 1-1 is a draw then there's less room for complaint over the latter, all this corner case hubbub over intentional draws notwithstanding. Does it really take people over 30 minutes to finish a single game?

Here's the real problem with these rules: no accommodation for sideboards . Rock/paper/scissors is a barely palatable dynamic in FFG's other properties, and only then by virtue of the fact that it does take 70+ minutes to finish a single game. That's not the case here.

Even in MTG your ability to cut and/or shuffle your opponents deck has nothing to do with your responsibility to ensure their deck is randomized. If they present a deck that isn't sufficiently randomized to you, even though you have the ability to properly randomize it for them, you are still suppose to call a judge over. They can and will be sanctioned for not randomizing their deck orooerly, even though you also have the ability to do it for them.

FFG also makes and markets many other games that don't have competitive play or require a draw deck with its order unknown to players. Clear sleeves fit in all of those cases. They don't in this one, not just because of promos but general irregularities that occur during their printing process.

Your concerned about event integrity being breeched in one situation by not mandating that a player cut or shuffle their opponents deck, but in the next breath are dismissive of the fact that FFG acknowledges that there are irregularities in their printings, and takes steps to ensure that doesn't much with the tournament integrity by requiring opaque sleeves. It isn't like other companies don't restrict certain kinds of sleeves either.

And you can be likewise 'sanctioned' for not also ensuring that their deck is randomized. The pendulum swings both ways.

Magic, a game with thousands of dollars in prize support, myriad and numerous promos, and cards that are equally as susceptible to tampering with, does not in any way regulate sleeve usage.

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

I realize all that, my point was that FFG made the change because of player complaints, right?

I was hoping they'd revisit it for this game, especially because matches are best of 1. To me, forcing a win on to one player is just as much muckery with the standings as an ID would be.

Losing a hard fought game because your opponent did one more damage than you? Ugh.

My problem with not having draws is that it makes certain archetypes and character teams less desirable to play in tournaments, especially with the short round time in Swiss. It heavily favors aggro.

The idea that 2 players who had not yet secured their position in the cut could do so by not playing and knock out a player or 2 who played all their games bothers me far more than losing a tie breaker by 1 damage.

What archetypes and character teams less desirable to play because you can't intentionally draw?

Anything that isn't aggro, the tie breaker rules heavily favor aggro style decks.

And its not the intentional draw that makes them less desirable it's the tie-breaker rule and the short round time (no draw), IDs are just the discussion at hand because it's the reason people give for their being no draws at all.

It could all not matter if 35 minutes is enough time, but if a lot of games are going to time and being decided by damage done it's going to be annoying.

It's the reason given for draws not existing, because it is the reason they don't exist in FFG games. It's not as if it's supposition on my part.

FFG tried allowing intentional draws. For the most part they were not well received across any of their games. FFG responded by removing them in the only feasible way, by also removing draws.

FFG does not want intentional draws to be a thing, thus they do not allow their games to end in draws. It's that simple

And yes intentional draws are much more accepted in MtG but their merits and the mechanics behind them do generate a lot of conversation and at times complaint.

I realize all that, my point was that FFG made the change because of player complaints, right?

I was hoping they'd revisit it for this game, especially because matches are best of 1. To me, forcing a win on to one player is just as much muckery with the standings as an ID would be.

Losing a hard fought game because your opponent did one more damage than you? Ugh.

My problem with not having draws is that it makes certain archetypes and character teams less desirable to play in tournaments, especially with the short round time in Swiss. It heavily favors aggro.

The idea that 2 players who had not yet secured their position in the cut could do so by not playing and knock out a player or 2 who played all their games bothers me far more than losing a tie breaker by 1 damage.

What archetypes and character teams less desirable to play because you can't intentionally draw?

Anything that isn't aggro, the tie breaker rules heavily favor aggro style decks.

And its not the intentional draw that makes them less desirable it's the tie-breaker rule and the short round time (no draw), IDs are just the discussion at hand because it's the reason people give for their being no draws at all.

It could all not matter if 35 minutes is enough time, but if a lot of games are going to time and being decided by damage done it's going to be annoying.

It's the reason given for draws not existing, because it is the reason they don't exist in FFG games. It's not as if it's supposition on my part.

I don't disagree with you, I was just stating a fact. We are discussing IDs because that's the reason there are no draws at all.

The tiebreaker rules don't "favor aggro decks". The tiebreaker rules assume that you are playing the game to win via the default victory condition, ie. dealing damage to opposing characters. If you want to pull a Johnny, be cute and win with an alternative wincon like mill, Crime Lord or "control" (serious air quotes action since I don't believe there are any "control decks" in Destiny, but that's a discussion for another thread), it's seriously hard to expect that the tournament regulations will be written to accomodate that over winning with the default victory condition.

You want to be Johnny, be Johnny. But don't expect the entire game and the tournament circuit to bend to accomodate you.

Damage Dealt

+

Cards Remaining (in hand and in draw)

=

Highest Wins

Problem solved.

The tiebreaker rules don't "favor aggro decks". The tiebreaker rules assume that you are playing the game to win via the default victory condition, ie. dealing damage to opposing characters. If you want to pull a Johnny, be cute and win with an alternative wincon like mill, Crime Lord or "control" (serious air quotes action since I don't believe there are any "control decks" in Destiny, but that's a discussion for another thread), it's seriously hard to expect that the tournament regulations will be written to accomodate that over winning with the default victory condition.

You want to be Johnny, be Johnny. But don't expect the entire game and the tournament circuit to bend to accomodate you.

Uh, no. The rules say there are two ways to win, not a primary way and then an alternate, backup method for determining a winner in case the first method falls through. One of those ways is by eliminating characters; damage has nothing to do with it.

I'm not even sure you understand what a Johnny is, but a win by milling your opponent is still a very Spike thing to do if the meta allows for it.

The 35 minutes doesn't account for the setup, drawing cards and selection of battlefield nor the end where you may play on until the end of the Status Phase. To me it looks closer then to 40 minutes or so. I honestly just don't know if this is or isn't enough time, right now. Has any one actually tried playing on a 35 minutes timer with the setup and end bit added as necessary?

As for the dice being assigned a card, I am not a fan of the tournament rules changes the regular rules. The other game I play also has a rule that changes the rule book rule. I would prefer to play by the rules.

As for the dice being assigned a card, I am not a fan of the tournament rules changes the regular rules. The other game I play also has a rule that changes the rule book rule. I would prefer to play by the rules.

I can see an unscrupulous person losing the first match in a 3 match per round event...then swiping a card from his opponents deck while cleaning resetting the table. Then if he's losing in the second round calling a judge that you think their is an issue with your opponents deck. Judge counts cards and see's your playing with 29. Immediate loss and since you can't find your card (safely tucked in your opponents pocket) your out.

Really!? You maybe need to find nicer people to play with if that's something you can genuinely envisage happening I think.

I have no issues with my local group...but major events will bring people far and wide I don't know and likely will never see again. Who would have ever thought someone would palm cards on video at a Major event in the final round? H3ll, just Google "Cheating in MtG" and you are still getting hits of people cheating at their World Championship events.

Fact is, those rules are absurd. Nobody in his right mind will disqualify a player, because he only brought one die for his Falcon he has in two copies. Also, they allow proxies for damaged cards, but if you lost a die you are disqualified - it's nonsense - a player could still play and use that dead card for rerolling.

Damage Dealt

+

Cards Remaining (in hand and in draw)

=

Highest Wins

Problem solved.

No, unfortunately that favors mill decks much too heavily.

It is much easier to mill multiple cards than it is to do equivalent damage.

A closer approximation would be ([cards milled] / 2) + damage dealt, rounding down. But even that is not perfect.

I see the issue FFG has, it is hard to have a formula where you have them be semi-equivalent without needing a calculator to figure it out.

The best formula I thought of would be like:

(25 - [Cards remaining in their deck and hand]){min 0} or [Damage Done] taking the highest number

I think that is closer to fair and still pretty simple math. The idea is that you are trying to set a value where the milled cards matches an average total where a damage deck would be if they were close to winning.

FFG could tweak the static number, but optimal is probably somewhere between 20 and 25, just so it's not a moving target.

In any case, I think there is a better solution that doesn't overly punish mill decks.