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!

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

The sith are good give it a break.

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…

The Gas said:

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.

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

stormwolf27 said:

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

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:

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.

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.

divinityofnumber said:

divinityofnumber said:

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.

divinityofnumber said:

AngryMojo said:

Why do you think so?

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?

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.

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. 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?

MarthWMaster 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.

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.

ScottieATF said:

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:

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?

MarthWMaster said:

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.

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 …

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……

AshesFall said:

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.

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.

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

JMCB said:

lol