Still don't really understand why # of objectives destroyed as the dark side is used in resolving a dark-side tiebreaker, while only the Death Star dial matters for a light-side tiebreaker, but w/e. Still good to see updated rules in enough of an advance of Gen Con for players to plan accordingly.

Cause if you're winning as the light side, you've destroyed 3... unless you pulled a Home One scenario or something similar. it makes more sense if you both won by destroying three of your opponent's objectives, the tie breaker would be who did it the fastest.

You'd be surprised by how many people are switching gears to more aggressive DS decks. It's entirely possible to destroy 4 objectives as DS. I've done it, and quite a few people in my meta have too. If this wasn't the tie breaker, what's the reward for destroying your opponent so thoroughly, aside from winning 1/2 of the match? absolutely nothing...

That's why if you both win Light side, the tie breaker is the dial. It shows who played their Dark deck better.

When you tie as Dark side, they use objectives because it shows how well your Light side deck played both offensively and defensively. They use total objectives because, although you may have blown up two objectives as Light side, you let two of your own get blown up. Is that good or bad? If you blow up two and have none of yours destroyed, that is better.

So it is not meant to favour aggro Dark decks (though I agree it does), it favours Light side decks that are good at both offense and defense.

That's not my problem with it. There are more relevant questions to answer than "let's just pick the new questions with the most obvious answers and add them to the FAQ.

What's missing that you need answered and I'll see if I can help?

No, I've already gotten answers from Nate for the really important ones. I just hate having to pull up a thread or email to prove it to people when they have te new FAQ and it's not in there.

Agreed. Too bad we have to pull up threads like this one rather than using the FAQ:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5916-official-rule-clarifications-direct-replies-ffg-only/

Still don't really understand why # of objectives destroyed as the dark side is used in resolving a dark-side tiebreaker, while only the Death Star dial matters for a light-side tiebreaker, but w/e. Still good to see updated rules in enough of an advance of Gen Con for players to plan accordingly.

Cause if you're winning as the light side, you've destroyed 3... unless you pulled a Home One scenario or something similar. it makes more sense if you both won by destroying three of your opponent's objectives, the tie breaker would be who did it the fastest.

You'd be surprised by how many people are switching gears to more aggressive DS decks. It's entirely possible to destroy 4 objectives as DS. I've done it, and quite a few people in my meta have too. If this wasn't the tie breaker, what's the reward for destroying your opponent so thoroughly, aside from winning 1/2 of the match? absolutely nothing...

That's why if you both win Light side, the tie breaker is the dial. It shows who played their Dark deck better.

When you tie as Dark side, they use objectives because it shows how well your Light side deck played both offensively and defensively. They use total objectives because, although you may have blown up two objectives as Light side, you let two of your own get blown up. Is that good or bad? If you blow up two and have none of yours destroyed, that is better.

So it is not meant to favour aggro Dark decks (though I agree it does), it favours Light side decks that are good at both offense and defense.

Well put.

My guess is that there are a few reasons for the "total objectives destroyed" tiebreaker in the event of a double DS win.

1) There would be a lot of ties counting only LS objectives destroyed. There are only three possibilities (0, 1, 2) for the number of objectives the LS destroyed in a loss.

2) Playing LS second would be a pretty big advantage if LS's objectives were the only count that mattered. It's already better to play LS second if LS is going to win both games (you know how fast you have to win). If LS objectives were the only factor in the tiebreaker, it would also be better to play LS second in a DS/DS win (you'd know how many objectives you had to destroy).

3) Control is still a bit ahead of aggro for DS in game win percentage, so aggro having better tiebreaks gives them a bump in overall win percentage.

4) It makes for some interesting decisions and gives you something to play for in lopsided games. You may want to not take the force as Navy to blow up more objectives, or work in some attacks as Sith. As LS, you may want to leave some defenders even if they haven't blown up an objective.

I don't think the tiebreak system is perfect, but it does work pretty well. If I could change anything, it would be the advancement by seeding in elimination rounds in the event of a tie in objectives destroyed, but that should be somewhat rare (and is certainly better than having them play another game).

I mean no offense to those who genuinely like the tiebreaker system. I just personally find it to be very disappointing. Nobody seems to be denying that this system favors aggressive dark side decks, but far more people seem to approve of this fact than I would have expected. Do you all really like it that much, or are you just defending it because you realize it's what we got, and you're trying to deal with that by emphasizing its pros over its cons?

I much preferred the system Covenant used before the official rules came out. If you won a game, you got twelve points, if you lost or went to time: as dark, you got points equal to your dial position; as light, your points were the number of dark side obectives you destroyed times 4. Whoever had the most points after three rounds of swiss won. Very granular, ties at the end of the night were almost unheard of. And no faction/strategy favoritism.

I much preferred the system Covenant used before the official rules came out. If you won a game, you got twelve points, if you lost or went to time: as dark, you got points equal to your dial position; as light, your points were the number of dark side obectives you destroyed times 4. Whoever had the most points after three rounds of swiss won. Very granular, ties at the end of the night were almost unheard of. And no faction/strategy favoritism.

That sounds much better. I had thought of this system, but didn't know anyone had tried it.

Still don't really understand why # of objectives destroyed as the dark side is used in resolving a dark-side tiebreaker, while only the Death Star dial matters for a light-side tiebreaker, but w/e. Still good to see updated rules in enough of an advance of Gen Con for players to plan accordingly.

I literally can't think of another metric to break ties on that is easy to track.

I'm just hoping that the new point structure will stop the "pure control isn't viable in tournaments" claims. Or at least quiet them a little. Granted it does nothing to change how elimination round play will play out other than put a slightly higher emphasis on being the higher seed...

Still don't really understand why # of objectives destroyed as the dark side is used in resolving a dark-side tiebreaker, while only the Death Star dial matters for a light-side tiebreaker, but w/e. Still good to see updated rules in enough of an advance of Gen Con for players to plan accordingly.

I literally can't think of another metric to break ties on that is easy to track.

See the quote in the post above yours.