ScottieATF said:

There is no reason to believe that any more than that happens in Netrunner.

Sorthlador said:

That's an interesting idea. Though I feel that having a permanently reduced reserve would be far more crippling than the loss of a few build points were in SWTCG tournaments. Resource exhaustion sounds like the far better option, or perhaps a smaller reserve that is raised to its printed value on the player's second turn.

Toqtamish said:

I don't know enough about Netrunner to say it does or does not happen to any degree.

But at a cursory glance then constant need for tiebreakers renders a card like Trench Run to be an almost unplayable liability.  Already it has it's up and down sides.  Losing objective targeting cards for instance in order to lower the overall damage required to win the game.  With anything like to proposed tiebreaker the number of situations where Trench Run would see play reaches near zero.  You can't afford to not kill objectives in that type of tournament system.  That is just the first thing off the top of my head.

ScottieATF said:

Re: trench run

if LS loses we have done 12 - the amount of damage done to the death star dial. 

I honestly can't see why we can't have a tied scenario. You either win 2-0 or you draw 1-1 and leave differential out of it. It seems too hard to me to come up with a fair differential system that caters for special game winning strategies like trench run and any others that may be included in future expansions.

ScottieATF said:

The tiebreaker could be measured in terms of distance from each side's win conditions, or alternate win conditions if applicable. In cases where there were multiple win conditions in play (including the built-in win condition), only the closest one to being achieved would be counted. For example, in a situation where Trench Run is in effect and there are five damage counters on the Death Star dial, the LS would be treated as being 5 points away from achieving victory. If there were six or more damage counters on The Heart of the Empire, LS would be 4 points away, and the damage on the Death Star dial would be ignored. This way, putting a card like Trench Run into play immediately strengthens the LS in terms of tiebreaking, while running The Heart of the Empire as DS carries a similar risk.

We had this conversation in our local store today.

My take until oficial rules:

Make 2 teams, LS and DS and make swiss style rounds matching the best LS players with the best DS players. then go to a top4/8/16 (2/4/8 DS & 2/4/8 LS) to have a final LS vs DS epic match. The problem is with the team distribution. Random with the posibility of change if you find a player willing to change maybe? that way you have to make both decks but play only one side. 

Maybe the winner can be knighted (or the proper starwar title) and has the option to choose side in subsequent tourneys ;)

In our store we may or may not put a "trophy board" so the winner side can brag. 

Since the game is so short, I guess having multiple games in a match wouldn't be the worst thing. But how do players determine who plays which side during a tiebreaker game?

Maybe there won't be a tiebreaker in regular rounds like in A: NR. 

MarthWMaster said:

I would much rather have some sort of consistent way to figure out margin of victory as the tie breaker than playing a third game.  Remember, if there's a tie it means that either LS or DS won both games of the match, so your margin of victory score wouldn't even have to be fair between LS and DS, but just within each side.  Of course, Heart of the Empire and Trench Run make it hard to come up with a good way to do that.  The other option: a 1-1 split is a tie (1 point each), while a 2-0 match is a win (3 points to winner, 0 to loser).  Or maybe each game is worth 1 point and that's it.

For those interested, here's a link to the SWCCG tournament guide with the explanation of how they handle the LS/DS split in modified swiss.  It's been running since 1995 with relatively little in the way of changes.  Relevant section (not yet updated for SOS, still using margin of victory - "differential"):

Running the Tournament
Pairings – Constructed Deck
1. First pairings - Randomize the pile of scorecards. Flip a coin (or use a similar method) to determine what allegiance the top scorecard (and thus every odd scorecard in the pile) will be. Take the top 2 scorecards off the pile and pair off these players, noting the names and affiliations on each card. Then repeat this process for the 3rd and 4th scorecards, and so on through the pile. If there are an odd number of players competing in the tournament, a bye (for that game) will be assigned to the player with the last card remaining.
2. Reporting the game score - When players complete their game, they must approach the director’s table together to report the results. Players must never mark their (or any other) scorecards unless asked to do so by the Tournament Director or judge. Mark each player’s card with their game score (See Scoring). Collect all scorecards, including the card from a player with a bye if there was one. After each game, update the player’s cumulative score by adding the victory points and differential for this game to their previous cumulative score. Each player must initial their own card
to show acceptance of reported score for that game. A player should report any problems on a scorecard to the judge immediately.
3. Subsequent pairings - When all players have completed play and all Command Cards have been marked with the results of the first games, separate the Command Cards into two piles according to each player’s allegiance in the game just played. Arrange the cards in each pile in descending order according to the player’s total score, with the highest score on top, second highest score beneath it, and so on until the card with the lowest score is on the bottom. For the second game of the round, pair the highest scoring player from the Dark Side pile with the highest scoring
player from the Light Side pile, and so on, until all players have been paired. If there are an odd number of players, the last player left receives the bye for the next game. If that player has previously received a bye in this tournament, reassign the bye to the next lowest ranked player in the same pile (that has not already received a bye). Players now play the second game of the round with an allegiance opposite that which they just played in the previous game. This way, each player completes a round having played one game with a Dark Side deck and one game with a
Light Side deck. Again, be sure to record the player’s allegiance for each game on their Command Card. It is possible that players could be matched up to face the same opponent more than once with the same allegiance. In this event, an attempt must be made to modify the pairing. Pair one player with the next highest ranked player after the one they were originally supposed to play. If they have already faced that person, pair them against the next highest ranked player of the opposite allegiance, repeating if necessary. In the rare case that the player has already faced all the players remaining in the pile, then leave the pairing as it originally was. A player should report any problems in pairings to the judge immediately.
4. Completing a round - Once the second game is over, the round is complete. Calculate cumulative scores on each card as it is received. Now, place all Command Cards together in a single pile, arranging them in descending order, with the highest cumulative score on top, and the lowest on the bottom.
5. Beginning a new round - To begin the next round, repeat the pairing process from Step 1. It is possible that players could face the same opponents more than once. If the two players previously played each other with the opposite allegiances, then the pairing stands. However, if the two players have already played each other with the same allegiances, an attempt must be made to modify the pairing. If the two players have not played each other with allegiances opposite to the current paring, modify the pairing to create that match. If that modification is not possible, the lower-ranked of the two players should switch rankings with the next highest ranked player, repeating if necessary. In the rare case that the player has already faced all the players remaining in the pile, then leave the pairing as it originally was.
Repeat Steps 2 through 4 to finish the round.

I like it.

Would you stick with the standard swiss format ie. 3 rounds for 1 - 8 players, 4 rounds for 9 -16 players etc…

Or would there be a minimum of say 6 for example?

Roman_Sandal said:

In this context "Round" typically means 2 matches/games (ie one game each with LS and DS against 2 different opponents so that everyone always plays an even number of LS and DS games).  In my experience, 3-4 rounds (6-8 games) is almost always suffecient.  For tournaments smaller than 8 people or so, 2 rounds (4 games) works pretty well.

Edit - Also, the change from margin of victory (differential) to SOS for tie-breaker makes the process even easier: instead of sorting by victory points and then differential, you just sort by victory points and shuffle randomly within the same score group.  In that case, tie breaking doesn't come into effect until the final standings are determined.  However, a good Margin of Victory algorithm would still be nice so that you could cut to the top 2 and have them play a 2-game match to determine the winner, or some such thing.

There was a tournament for Star Wars held at the FFG Event Center during the World Championship Weekend.  I did not get to play in it, but I did watch for a bit.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the system was similar to Netrunner.  You get paired with an opponent, and you play that opponent twice.  Once with your LS deck, and once with your DS deck. 

Did anyone here get to play in it? 

Roman_Sandal said:

I agree, a tournament where you establish if you are light or dark and then alternate each other round. 

-Chris