I think theres a lot of good points going around but for me, I want to play two games vs one opponent. No matter what. I've played to many games where I just drew (even twice) a really bad strating hand. I'd hate to loose a whole tourny cuz of that. 

I would rather use points away from win (closest possibility) for tiebreakers. keeping note of clicks left on DS dial, or total objective damage left before win (these, of course, only being counted if you lose). The points assigned would reflect this, and the player with the lowest points (in the tiebreaker column) wins

I.E:

Player #1 is playing DS first. Player #2 Wins the first game, but the DS dial was at 8, so there's 4 tie-breaker points for P1, and 10 points for P2.

Player #1 wins the second game, when the DS dial is at 7. That makes 5 tie-breaker points for P2, and 10 points for P1.

 This equivalates to 10 match points each, with tie-breaker points being 4 for P1, 5 for P2. Player #1 wins the match.

(example 2)

When Player #1 wins the first game, there is a total of 3 damage left on his/her last objective. P2=3pts (tie-breaker), P1=10pts

Player #2 wins the second game, but only has 1 damage left on his final objective when he speeds the DS to 12. P1=1pt (tie-breaker), P2=10pts.

P1=10 match pts, 1 tie-breaker. P2=10 match pts, 3 tie-breaker. Player #1 wins.

I know this is probably not how it's gonna go down, but just my thoughts.

stormwolf27 said:

That wouldn't really work well b/c not all Objective cards have the same Health. Two (or more) players could face the same opponent, inflict the exact same amount of damage against his DS Objectives but have different tie-breaker scores.

FREX the DS player's Ojb Deck has 2x Take Them Prisoner (6 Health), 1x Heart of the Empire (10), 2x Emperor's Web (4), 1x Hit and Run (4), and 3 others with 5 Health each.  If he faced 3 players and each of them destroyed 2 Objs with 5 Health (IE they each inflicted 10 pts of dmg on their Objectives) then the DS player won w/no damage on his remaining Objs, the LS player's Tie-Breaker score would be equal to the Obj card w/the lowest Health.

1st game ends w/ Emporer's Web, Hit and Run, and Take them Prisoner on the table - Player 1's tie-breaker score would be 4.

2nd game ends w/Take Them Prisoner, Heart of the Empire, and a 5 Health card on the table - Player 2's score is 5.

3rd game ends w/both Take Them Prisoners and Heart of the Empire. His score is 6.

What about sideboard rules for tournaments?
 

How many Objectives seem reasonable in a sideboard? Two? Three?

Very, very unlikely you will see a sideboard. I was hoping the tournament rules would get posted today with the regionals 2013 applications now up. 

FFG - Please post the official tournament rules. :)

Toqtamish said:

Why? I'm not new to card games but I've never played competitively before. I only know about sideboards from reading Magic strategy articles.

Hans Chung-Otterson said:

Because the LCG's haven't needed them. 

Hans Chung-Otterson said:

Because no LCG has ever had one before and I don't see any reason why Star Wars would be an exception to that.

Sideboards are only really needed when you're playing a best-out-of-X series using the same deck each time.  If you're going to play LS once and then switch to DS for the next game, there's really no reason to sideboard any cards/objective sets.

Chrome said:

Right. I see where you're coming from. It was just a thought. I was only thinking of tie-breaker points counting within the match, though, to determine winner. For the tournament tie-breaker, you use SOS and Prestige, like with Netrunner and AGoT. (Netrunner does Prestige where it's 2 points per game win and an extra point per match win, for a possible 5 points prestige, which helps break ties between people in the rare case of matchins SOS's).

MarthWMaster said:

 Issue the player's a starting side randomly during pairing. This will be their side if a tie breaker is needed. If time runs out during a tie breaking game, either issue both players 1 point as a tie, or hand out a win based on cards remaining in the play deck.  Is there something I'm not considering? This is of course assuming that a match consists of each player playing a game with both sides. 

Or just alternate a player's side between rounds and run matches as best of three. I don't remember players in a SWCCG tournament ever really being stuck playing one side during the majority of the tournament…unless it was sealed/draft

qwertyuiop said:

SWCCG you always played the same number of games as LS and DS (unless you had a bye).  I posted a link to the tournament guide for SWCCG a little earlier in the thread - I plan on using that format if I run any tournaments between now and when FFG releases actual tournament rules.

Locally, we have been planning on running our events in the same fashion as Netrunner, since that is the most likely way FFG will handle the tournament scenario. (It also has never been an issue for our Netrunner events. People love the ability to play two different decks in one round) 

As for the points decisions…that is the tricky part. But we shall see what happens. I hope it is as simple as A:NR or reasonably close to it. 

When I discussed the idea of only using one of the two decks per round, it was unanimously shot down. People are required to build two decks, and want to enjoy the experience of playing both of them. It is a core part of the game, so it only makes sense to exist in the tournament structure as well.

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.