How is everybody finding the emphasis on objective destruction for the Dark Side in the tie-breaker rules to be affecting their tournament experiences? Are the decks that dominate the most aggressive in your metas? I wish we could do a poll on this stuff because I remember hearing some people describing tournaments where they ended up being in positions where losing the game faster was a better strategy than winning due to the way these rules can affect match outcomes. What do you all think?

Also, aren't we due for an FAQ update sometime soon?

I have not had any issues with this. I have been mostly playing Sith and I typically kill one maybe two objectives most of the time. I have not found this to be a problem. In fact, I kind of like it.

Aggressive decks can do well, but its not nearly as much of a problem as some have made it out to be. Many, including myself, won regionals using more defensive DS decks.

No idea about the FAQ.

I have played in 5 Regionals and play in 1-2 tournaments a week. Even when playing casual games (along with harsher deck-testing), we use the tie-breakers.

I love them. It encourages a more balanced deck-building and often places some pressure on those folks who want to just camp and let the dial click.

Yeah, it's a balancing act - pure control decks win VERY reliably, but will almost always lose the tiebreaker, so if you're running one you'd better be **** sure your lightside deck is also amazing. Aggro decks are less reliable, but when they do win, they'll have a pretty good shot at winning the tie.

I hate the tourney tie-breaker rules. But, I love this game, and just take them into consideration when building decks. I would like to see them changed at some point.

Yeah, it's a balancing act - pure control decks win VERY reliably, but will almost always lose the tiebreaker, so if you're running one you'd better be **** sure your lightside deck is also amazing. Aggro decks are less reliable, but when they do win, they'll have a pretty good shot at winning the tie.

This is a pretty decent description. Pure control can still have a decent shot at the tie breaker though. Remember, preventing one of your objectives from being destroyed counts the same as destroying one yourself for tie breaker purposes. A deck that reliably wins games up 1-0 on objectives is just as good as one that wins up 3-2 every game. The main difference is that the 1-0 deck gives you much less margin for error (as far as tie breakers are concerned) while the 3-2 deck may occasionally go 4-2 or even 4-1 and pretty much guarantee the tie breaker.