Hi all, this may have been possible during a recent game and of course would only matter for possible tournament tie breakers.

Top of page 15 reads, "The LS player wins the game immediately when one of the following occurs: Three or more DS objective cards are destroyed…"

My scenario had an unopposed Home One about to destroy an objective, and activating it's splash damage reaction, would also add the final damage to another. Home One says, "Reaction: After this unit is focused to strike…" so I'm seeing this as the initial action of focusing to strike completes first, which immediately ends the game and Home One gets blue balled. Otherwise let me know if this is wrong.

So far with our given cards is it possible to destroy 4? Can it be recorded for the tournament tie breaker? Same when the Death Star dial goes beyond 12?

And in case the LS pulls off a trench run is this recorded as a LS win with 0 objectives destroyed? (I think this should be an automatic tie breaker ).

theChony said:

The LS could indeed win with more than 3 or fewer than 3 objectives destroyed. I think you'll find that this doesn't really mess up the tie breaker for them at all as the number of objectives destroyed only matters when both Dark Side decks win.

Similarly, the dial does not advance past 12, but as the dial position only matters when both Light Side decks win, it doesn't matter.

I think that Home One scenario is a good one to bring up. I always thought it was viable, but now that I take a closer look, I think that situation would only net you 3 objectives because the third is destroyed before the reaction can take place. But let's look at a different scenario: you have 4 damage on two objectives and attack the third, undamaged objective. In this case, if these are the 3rd and 4th objectives you need, you'd get both and end with 4 objectives.

But as TheChony mentioned, if you win as LS, the tie breaker is the DS dial, so it doesn't matter that you took 4 objectives, right? I'm asking this because at the start of tournament, I heard a bunch of people talking about using tie-breaker points later on in the tournament, after that match is over. Is that where strength of schedule comes in, or did those people misunderstand tie-breakers?

Budgernaut said:

SoS is based on how well your opponents' did in the tournament when they weren't playing you.

If you went 2-1-1 (lost on a tie breaker for the loss) for a total of 12 tournament points, you have a better SoS having played someone who went 3-1 with 20 points (3 clean sweeps and one tiebreaker loss) than playing someone who went 3-1 with 11 points (all tiebreaker determined)

And if you played the first person, you would out position someone who had the same record and points as you who played the second person.

SoS only has anything to do with tiebreakers in the sense that they do make a difference in your match points.

ScottieATF said:

It's an example. Just that. Nothing more. I was going off a random determination of points I got out of thin air to describe SoS. I could care less what the real point structure is for these purposes. If I was right on what SoS is, who the f cares if my point totals were accurate?

As of right now, you cannot win with destroying 4 objectives as LS. When Home One strikes, it will destroy the objective. The game is over before the reaction resolves. That's it. GG. Just as DS can't advance the dial past 12, (even if it were possible) I would never score more than 3 objectives destroyed for LS ever.

agnos said:

No, no. Because if you have 2 objective, but the reaction deals the final 1 damage to two objectives besides the one you are attacking, the reaction happens simultaneously to both of those two, so you just took out 4 objectives. Unless, that is, you argue that the reaction doesn't simultaneously deal damage to those two objectives and is dealt sequentially instead (which I don't believe is true).

So, two ways this could happen (and yes, I'm repeating myself):

Scenario 1 (the less likely):
You destroy two objectives early on in the game. Subsequently, there are three objectives out, and two of them have 4 damage on them (out of 5 damage capacity). The third objective is undamaged. You attack with Home One and deal 2 damage to the undamaged objective, and then initiate the reaction to deal 1 to each of the other two objectives, destroying them at the same time and bringing the total to 4 destroyed objectives.

Scenario 2 (nore plausible):
Similar to the first except that you have only taken 1 objective. Two objectives need one more damage and the third needs 2 more damage. You attack the thrid with Home One, destroying your second objective of the game, and then initiate the reaction to simultaneously destroy your 3rd and 4th objectives.

At least, this is how I see it happening. Again, this is all academic since it isn't going to matter. I'm just saying you can do it.

ScottieATF said:

Because I didn't feel like looking at the tournament rules document at that particular moment, and the question was "Do tiebreakers affect strength of schedule?" not "What kind of point structure do they use in tournaments?" If the latter were the question, I would have been more factual in my numbers.

And besides, you said it yourself. This is a rules forum. i.e. A place to discuss and debate rules interpretations. Not the end-all-be-all nirvana of answers. If people are that worried about getting 100% accurate answers from 100% of the people they ask 100% of the time, maybe they should just email FFG and stop relying on a forum to give them the answers.

you forgot the very unlikely yet possible 5 objective LS win

all you need is:
1: Two previously destroyed objectives
2: The three current in play objectives to only needing 1 more damage
3: Trench run the deathstar dial with home one to take the last points on the three objectives to win with 5 objectives

stormwolf27 said:

Just because we can't be 100% accurate 100% of the time, doesn;t mean we shouldn't be as accurate as possible. It certainly doesn't mean we should get hostile/defensive when someone points out a misleading statement or example.

Telling people to ask FFG if they are expecting accurate answers to basic questions doesn't make sense. It is ineffective for all parties and isn't needed when other players are fully capable of giving accurate answers via the forums.

Valdrain said:

A very good point. Not forgotten, per se, just forgot to mention.

ScottieATF said:

I wasn't being hostile. I didn't feel I was, and certainly didn't expect you to take it as such…. However, there was no call for your original comment. Telling me I need to look at the tournament scoring again, assuming that I hadn't (and for future records, I'm almost positive those are A:NR tournament totals, and I probably just had them on the brain when tring to explain SoS), was rude.

Also, I'm not telling people they always need to go to FFG for basic answers. Maybe you should read my statement again. I said that the rules email option would be better for 100% accuracy from 100% of the replies 100% of the time. That's not the same as "don't ask the forum." Please, do not put words in my mouth.

I said your example wasn't possible. I told you I think you need to take another look at the tournamemt rules, because your example wasn't possible. If you consider that being rude, then I don't know what to tell you. I specifically suggest that you go look at the tournament scoring again, not that you hadn't read them at all. Only, as you admitted, that you were simply confused and needed clarification.

And yes to my knowledge those are accurate Netrunner scores, which is exactly why I corrected you. You would not be the first nor the last person to confuse the two scoring systems. Based on the threads original premise, players don't read the tournament rules all to carefully, so being as clear as possble is important since players miss main structure points.

Hey guys, let's just drop this. I've been in an argument like this on a forum before where neither of us wanted to back down. Because it's a public forum, it makes it easier to get defensive because you worry about what others think and you can't let go for fear of losing face. In my case, it got bad enough that I stopped visiting that forum altogether. I would hate to see that happen to either of you two. From my perspective, it seems you are both right, given your perceptions. Let's just shake hands in this and leave as fellow SW:TCG players.