The clock introduces tension. The LS has to make hard decisions right from the first turn on whether to go for objectives now or wait and commit to the force or a mix of both, knowing they have only 5, 6, 7 turns to get them before the DS wins.

The DS can't hold out for 12 turns - in big battles, too many units with firepower get their hits onto the objectives. Plus, 12 turns means the LS is winning the Force Struggle, getting a free damage on an objective each turn (that's 12, and you only need 15 damage to win). So the onus is on the DS to either win the Force Struggle or attack. The Dark Jedi faction is as equally likely to win the Force Struggle as the Jedi deck, depending on card draws. Other factions aren't as strong in the Force; they'll require more attack-minded strategies and other clock-manipulation strategies, plus they'll have other effects-based means of winning, meaning more asynchonicity.

Without the clock, I can imagine the game dawdling for turn after turn while both players get a whole swag of their cards out. And then there's almighty big battles - which can be fun, but doesn't produce tension each turn.

Btw, just to confirm, the Death Star dial doesn't represent the building of the (or a) Death Star, it represents more the growing sphere of influence it has, or the Dark Side has. It's already been built when the game commences, a fact that the Imperial Navy should get to (boom!) play with.

 Having one side in a conflict having an advantage over the other is an excellent way to sell the drama in a story plot, but it does not work well as a game mechanic. How much fun would you have in a game where your opponent has a decided advantage over you and because of that advantage you frequently lose. You'd rarely want to be on the losing side. Its far more fun to contest a fair fight than an unfair one.

aussiecossie said:

That's not the issue at hand, though. The Dark Side has no advantage, for the reasons pointed out by PBrennan. Some fans though, such as myself, are just having a bit of trouble with the asymmetry. In my case, I see it as a very tacked-on concept. I hope a closer look at the game changes this opinion, but given the radio silence about this game since GenCon, I'm beginning to have my doubts.

aussiecossie said:

I wasn't saying that either side had an inbuilt advantage. I was attempting to assuage fears about the clock, explaining how the DS can't just sit back and do nothing and wait for the clock to run out. There's an onus on them to accelerate the clock, just as there's an onus on the LS to beat the clock. That's the nature of the game. I think you can be assured that FFG won't release an unbalanced affair :-)

 See I have to respectfully disagree there. The doomsday clock cannot be stopped of destroyed as far as we know so there is a finite amount of turns before the ds wins. Ls does not have that luxury they get lumped with a finite amount of turns before they lose. 

Now say the ds has control of the force and destroys an objective, that clock ticks over at 3x speed and the ds merely has to stall another couple of turns to win. How is that fair?

People have suggested that the doomsday clock is there to prevent games from taking forever, but isn't it fairer then to have a timer that once expired players work out who is winning rather than having the match automatically handed over to another player?

From what I've seen of the game, I think it's fair to say that it's not all that difficult for either side to destroy 3 objectives in a timely manner even in an epic struggle. And personally I thinks it's a far better measure of who was the better player this way rather than the weaker player managing to hang on long enough for an auto win.

aussiecossie said:

Well, in this situation, the DS have just beaten the LS in combat AND in the Force Struggle. I'd say they're winning, and the clock ticking up by 3 captures that. Conversely, if the LS had stopped the DS killing an objective, and were winning the Force Struggle, I'd say they were winning and they're rewarded with more turns to achieve their own win condition.

 Indeed they the dark side would be winning, but my point is the chanceof a comeback is greatly diminished. The the ds would need to do is guarantee their control of the force by having enough characters on the table. Times on their side so they could wait the game out. Not fun. Whereas with a fair three objective each model the dark side could gain the same early lead but would still be forced to press their advantage and batlle for the other 2 objectives in order to win or risk the light side making a comeback.

What I'm trying to say is that the doomsday clock opens up the undesirable strategy of stalling for the win that the light side cannot reciprocate and that is in and of itself unfair. It's a deal breaker for me, I'll probably go with netrunner over star wars if this is the case believe it or not because at least the differences between both sides are deliberately offensive and defensive and far more interesting.

aussiecossie said:

I've seen a few people say this, and while in theory it seems like a winning idea, in actual playing this over the weekend it just is not accurate. If the Dark Side does nothing but try to commit to the Force and defend I just do not see how they will win. Enough damage will still get through to your objectives due to how the combat works.

Now once we see the card pool, there might be more Dark Side cards that synergize with this strategy, but then I'm sure there would be options for the Light Side to counter.

Some of you guys really need to just chill and wait to play the game before calling the whole thing unbalanced. The game seems very well balanced with tense action and choices coming from both sides.

 Or coarse you're right Matt in that I can't pass judgement in all fairness until the finished product is released (or at least until they release the rulebook). All I can do right now is go by what ive seen, and these are the concerns I have based on that. I sincerely hope this game is brilliant and successful but from what I've leant in my years of experience as a gamer/tcg enthusiast/ board game nerd I'm worried that this mechanic is a recipe for abuse.

What Matt said. As long as you have units in play, and hopefully lots of them, you're always in the game, so falling behind on the clock doesn't require a "comeback" as such. Allowing the DS to use up his units whacking your objectives and accelerating the clock, without you defending it, may be a deliberate and winning strategy. If you have a bunch of units out and fresh, not spent on defense, you may be able to whack him back next turn even harder than he hit you. It's not where the clock is that actually determines winning … it's units out and their capability.

Re stalling, if you've built a Dark Jedi deck around defense (ie damage and tactics icons, ignoring firepower icons) and winning the force struggle, I'd say that's a viable strategy to try. You'll still be in a bunch of combats so it's not like it's going to be boring, it's just they'll be triggered by the Light Side. Having choice of approach might be attractive to players rather than a simple symmetrical attack vs attack game where the only strategy is, well, to attack.

There'll be a bunch of other ways to win the game. It's a deckbuilder after all … find a strategy, abuse it :-)

 Each to their own I suppose :p