dbmeboy said:

Yeah, this top cut thing is new to me with this LCG. I don't remember it being all that popular with any other card game I've played. Last regional I went to didn't have one, and while there was a clear winner, the rest of the top 4 was left to strength of schedule because we all had the same score. Maybe we just needed one more round.

romo said:

You're right. So, adjust what I said and include "game scores are kept for strength of schedule" to determine placement. Solved.

dbmeboy said:

I agree, I dont find the rules themselves to be that big of an issue. Sure you can sort of "game" them a bit, but thats not really all that different than any game. The Decipher rules were also not perfect and there were ways to skew your results, just like any system.

I have had MUCH more trouble with the tournament rules being misinterpreted by TOs. On separate occaisons, I've had TOs argue that:

- I win game 1 and game 2 goes to time means that my opponent and I both get 2 points (which is wrong, I would get 3 and my opponent would get 1)

- The tiebreaker for both players winning as DS is how many objectives you killed as LS only (which is wrong, is TOTAL objectives killed in the match)

etc.

Thats a much bigger problem in my opinion, since it leads to faulty tourney results.

The tiebreaker for both players winning as DS is how many objectives you killed as LS only (which is wrong, is TOTAL objectives killed in the match)

Um, if both DS players win, you look at how many objectives each player blew up AS the DS. Not total, and not LS at all.

cephalgia said:

Nope. It is the total number destroyed by each player throughout the entire match. Tournament rules, page 4, about 2/3 down the right side of the page.

Just a little more evidence that the poster you quoted was correct in his assessment that people misinterpret the rules!

cephalgia said:

No, that's not right. Tournament rules, page 4:

"Each player wins with his dark side deck. When this occurs, the total number of objectives each player destroyed throughout the course of the entire match is compared. The player who destroyed more total objectives in his two games is the modified match winner, and receives 1 bonus point."

I haven't figured out why the tournament rules seem to be so confusing to so many people, but I have also run into several TOs who had trouble with the rules.

dbmeboy said:

IMO its because a lot of people/places had/have their own rules in place and did not fully read and understand the document. They then just assumed the rule was written the way they had been playing it.

The issue is that frequently, their mistake is not found until it is too late to change it. I actaully missed top 4 at a regional recently because of one of these mistakes, but I didnt know it until midway through the finals. Was talking to a guy who should have had less points than me about it, and we realized that he should have missed the cut instead of me.

Not the end of the world (ill get over it), but it underlines the issue.

So TOs - Please play and re-read the rules prior to hosting tournaments!

Would a FAQ thread/document help? If so I'd gladly start one.

You guys that play Thrones or Netrunner, are those organized play events handled better? Does FFG generally take a "hands off" approach to its own events?

If nothing else, the lack of consistency across SW regionals shows there is a need for a more structured organized play environment. If FFG is unwiling or incapable of implementing it, maybe a third party can partner with them. Having a centralized location for events, players, rankings, etc. can only help grow the game.

Holliday88 said:

Wow. That is not how our regional was scored. Unreal..

Based on the rules, can a player only concede game one of a match?

Dxopherj said:

No, they can concede the second game, however they are considered to have 0 ojectives destroyed (DS) and the dial at 0 (LS). Also the opponent is considered to have destroyed 3 objectives (LS) and again the dial is at 0 (DS).

Because the rules say a player can concede if they believe it is hopeless and want to get to the second game. It's an issue because at my regional in the final match I won the first game with DS 4-0 on objectives, why not just concede game two?

Dxopherj said:

At that point the TO can, should, and I hope would step in and tell you that if you concede the second game, you also concede the tiebreaker as well. Ultimately yes it should be readressed in the rules, but any TO worth a **** could sort that one out.

But I commend you for actually reading the rules enough to find a loophole, as opposed to entire events where no one knew the basic tiebreakers

Honestly, the concession rules 100% need to be redone. They're absolultely god awful.

agnos said:

The only issue is that it limits the tie-breaker when a consession should forfeit the tie-breaker in every case.

Not the only issue. There is also no need to have only one opportunity for player to concede (at the beginning of his/her turn). Simply put, this just prolongs unnecesary turns. If we go by the book, we're just wasting time here.

"2. Each player wins with his dark side deck. When

this occurs, the total number of objectives each player

destroyed throughout the course of the entire match

is compared. The player who destroyed more total

objectives in his two games is the modified match winner,

and receives 1 bonus point. If each player wins with his

dark side deck and the total number of enemy objectives

each player destroyed throughout the course of the

match is equal, the match is scored as a true draw, 2-2."

If I destroy my own objectives, say using the Reaction on Deploy The Fleet or Message From Beyond, it counts toward my tiebreaker, and is something I should be doing on the last turn of the game, when things are basically decided, correct?

I believe that in that case the destroyed objective counts toward your opponent's victory pile.

For sure a destroyed DS objective would count towards the 3 objectives needed for LS to win the game, and a destroyed LS objective would increase the DS dial. But is there a ruling saying that if you do an action that destroys your own objective, your opponent is still considered to be the one to have destroyed it?

The Empire Brings Sexy Back said:

I feel fairly strongly that while your point is well thought out from a strict interpretation of the words, the fact that the destroyed objectives count in game for your opponent means that the intention of the rule is definitely not to pick nits about whose action actually destroyed the objective. I'm going to go ahead and add this to the things I hope Tournament Directors would rule on correctly. I know I would be upset if my opponent tried to make such an argument for a tiebreaker being decided in his favor.

I know that when I've been at tournaments where somebody has brought this up theorhetically the response (from both me and the TO) has been something along the lines of: "You're right, they should probably clean up the wording, but no."

The Empire Brings Sexy Back said:

Yes, page 23 of the rule book:

"When one of a player’s current objective cards is

destroyed, it is placed in his opponent’s victory pile. A

player’s victory pile tracks how many of the opponent’s

objective cards have been destroyed."

When you destroy one of your own objectives, it counts for your opponent.

Holliday88 said:

Yes. I think the question in this case refers to the wording in the tournament rules which says "the player who destroyed more total objectives in his two games is the modified match winner." The intent is obvious for most of us, but a better wording might be something like "The player with the most total objectives in their victory piles…"

Any easy fix to the tie-breaker with the DS-DS win problem (wanting to win slower so you can destroy LS objectives for the tie-breaker) might be to only count objectives destroyed while playing as the light side. After all, when you tie-break LS-LS, it only matters how well you did when you were playing DS (when you lost), so maybe for DS-DS we should only count how well you did in the game you lost when you played as LS, not objectives destroyed in both games.

Also, this may not be a huge problem, because playing that way could easily get you a game loss, even if you are dominating the board. One wrong Rebel Assault that you can't counter and you might lose a game you were dominating.