I have to say that I manage to destroy two or three objectives using Sith so cannot see too much of a problem with the rules as they stand.

ScottieATF said:

For winning, that is clearly the case. And approproate. However, as a tiebreaker counting damage does provide a much better measurement. Also, it takes care of several problems with the "you only get points for destroying objectives" model. The current way to break ties is simply too narrow and clumsy.

D0CT0R said:

The problem isnt that it isnt possible in any way shape or form to destroy objectives as sith or ds in general. The problem is that these rules enforce a certain playstyle and deck build. Tournament rules should never straightjacket the players. Is it really so hard to just change the system?

MarthWMaster said:

I've also found that in timed formats, if agressive play is not rewarded then you wind up getting lots of stall tactics.  If you want a good example of this, take a look at WarMachine by Privateer Press and their top-tier tournament results for the first year.  Every one of the top ten spots was filled by the same faction, using the same leader figure.  It was, go figure, the defensive faction with the stall-tactic leader.  This isn't to say tournaments and games that favor agressive play can't have the same problems, but I've found that when the clock is against the players the game winds up being more interesting overall.

Besides, it's not like the tournament rules as they stand favor agressive play that much, if you win both rounds you never even resort to the objective tie-breaker.

I have to agree with the mob on this one … the rules aren't a problem, yet.

Aggressive decks are favored, but that does not mean that a defensive control deck cannot do well in an organized tournament.

Give the tournament rules some time, collect some data, and come back to the community with it. If it still points in the direction you posit, then hopefuly it will gain traction …

With all the previews we have gotten. I believe Jedi and sith will be the weaker factions since hoth is pretty imp and rebel base. I think smugglers will get pretty strong in may same with SV. 

The problem is going to be that pAlpy and fader won't  be enough. Yes they will get help but believe they have the least support amd won't get that much coming up. 

So have fun running your sith……

AshesFall said:

Yeah, that sounds like a good balance. It also prevents a situation I'd not previously considered, that of a shrewd player putting damage on other objectives before sacking the Heart of the Empire, thereby reaching 16+ points' worth of damage in a game.

I don't think there is a big issue. The Navy decks tend to destroy more objectives, but so do their opponents.

If I win as Navy, destroying 3 objectives to your 2, and you win as Sith, destroying 2 objectives while your opponent destroys only one, it works out in your favor.

Anyway, if you win with your LS deck, or if you lose with DS deck, the objective tie breaker is irrelevant. If the Sith deck wins more reliably than the Navy deck by any significant amount, then you should play it anyway.

Objective destruction should only be favored in your deck if you think that DS is significantly more likely to win each game. If LS has a reasonable chance of winning, its unlikely to come to an objective damage tie breaker anyway.

Or you can be a pro like me and just win all of your games…

JMCB said:

lol

AshesFall said:

I didn't think about your proposal much yet to have comments on it, but I wanted to quote this part to point out…if you destroy Heart of the Empire or Trench Run it doesn't matter how much total damage/objectives you killed. You have a LS win happening in either case.

Scoob said:

Yeah. This thread is mostly discussing the issue of the tiebreaking method.

MarthWMaster said:

I know. I was trying to point out that in DS tiebreakers Trench Run and Heart of the Empire are not an issue if you want to calculate total damage. Because if you only get 9 damage on them, you only got 9 damage. But if you got 10 damage (absent Defense Upgade) you win the game as the LS player. So you're no longer in DS wins both tiebreaker mode.

As for me, I agree that I don't like the tournament rules suggesting a specific playstyle. If the LS tiebreaker only takes into account how close the losing player was to winning, the DS tiebreaker should try to do the same.

I'd just like to echo what others have said about the favoring of aggressive play styles being a positive thing. I want to see my tournaments end in a reasonable amount of time which means I am in favor of limiting stall tactics. 

Also, I think the savvy Sith player can adjust on the fly to a more smashmouth style if he thinks he'll need help int he tiebreakers department. The real issue here is not about whether Sith can sin tournaments reliably - it is about the community as a whole getting better at playing LS, I think.

At this point I just have to ask because I'm a little surprised: Who here is actually finding that their games with/against Sith are taking too long, or would be taking too long in a tournament environment? 

I've found Star Wars to be one of the fastest games I've ever played, regardless of each player's affiliation.

I have yet to have a match (we've been practicing with the tournament rules but haven't had an official event just yet at Your Local Game Store in Matthews, NC) that gets even close to time. I just think this was done in the tournament rules as a matter of forethought. The folks at FFG are planning ahead because they know much more about the types of cards/powers of cards/number of cards per faction that are going to be released than we do. I don't think matches going to time is much of an issue at this point, but the rules are structured to keep it from becoming so. 

I think that Sith's record for victory (that is a STRONG control deck) will mean lots of players still field that deck at tournaments. The tiebreaker rule slightly favoring Imperial Navy might also mean we get an encouragement for a variety of DS deck styles, too.