Star Wars PocketModels Community Forums

SWPM Gaming => Fleets & Decks => Topic started by: _J_ on July 08, 2007, 02:26:58 PM

Title: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 08, 2007, 02:26:58 PM
There are two lose conditions in this game.  If all of your objectives are destroyed you lose.  If you have no ships in play you lose.

So, what strategy do you use when playing?  Do you go for objectives or the removal of all ships?  Or do you have no direct goal but merely go after what seems the most likely to win in any given game?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Phantom Regiment Fan on July 08, 2007, 02:41:42 PM
I generally go for destroying my opponent's ships. With my deck, it's easier to kill ships than to reach/kill objectives.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: mattyh on July 08, 2007, 02:59:05 PM
In the  games I've played I've tended to try to kill their ships until I see them put too much into the contested zone, and at that point I usually try to jump into their home zone to attack their objectives.  I'm all about trying to make them change their game plan.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 08, 2007, 03:24:36 PM
I only know one other person who plays.  We've tried to mix up a few different decks / fleets.  But I find that going after the objectives first is almost always a guaranteed victory.  Get a Star Destroyer into their home base, pull in a ** ship, and blast away the objectives.

It's far easier than taking out their entire fleet.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: mattyh on July 08, 2007, 03:47:24 PM
There was a rumor going around from a magazine article (i think) that said they are going to add some stationary lasers or something.  It sounds like they would be used to protect your objectives or something like that.  So it sounds like going after objectives is going to get a bit harder come September.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 08, 2007, 03:52:19 PM
I would appreciate that.  Games which last all of 6 minutes are not very fun.  My friend and I thought they needed to do something to make Objectives harder.  Maybe make the rule 5 or so objectives.  The problem with that, though, is that one could get hella good bonuses by having some of those objectives in play.

There needs to be something changed about objectives.  Cause all you have to do is live through their turn attacking and then just beat the objective's defense number, which isn't hard with some of the ships and a few of the +2 to strike attempt objectives in play.  There were a few games where all I had to do was roll the dice to hit his objectives, and that's not fun.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: mattyh on July 08, 2007, 04:00:40 PM
Yeah, having shields like ships would have made sense to me.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 08, 2007, 04:17:34 PM
Or allow a defending player to make an attack on any ships that fire onto it's Objectives or something.

I assume the balance was supposed to be that the Objectives sit in your home zone, but in practice that doesn't seem to help all that much.

Plus the carrier ability being an unlimited effect.  You bring in your star destroyer, bring in a **, and then keep bringing it back until they either destroy the star destroyer or you destroy all of their Objectives.

It's a bit wonky.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: outrider on July 08, 2007, 05:09:59 PM
I usually aim to defeat my opponent's fleet as well (especially with swarms)... it is rather difficult to infiltrate the opponents home zone to strike the next turn without getting shot at... although I will use heavily shielded carrier, like the "Devastator" to stay in my opponent's home zone and to try to knock out objectives or drop units in my opponent's zone... I don't think I really favor one victory condition over the other, I think it depends on what your opponent does...
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Phantom Regiment Fan on July 08, 2007, 05:22:18 PM
In my fleet, I don't have many carriers, so objectives is not how I like to win.

I generally keep some fighters back in case my opponent decides to go for my objectives, but the rest goes after his fleet.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Smaug317 on July 09, 2007, 04:17:35 PM
There are two lose conditions in this game.  If all of your objectives are destroyed you lose.  If you have no ships in play you lose.

So, what strategy do you use when playing?  Do you go for objectives or the removal of all ships?  Or do you have no direct goal but merely go after what seems the most likely to win in any given game?

For me, it all depends on the situation.  ::)

I'd say it's about 50/50 for me. Ships battles usually happen no matter what though.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on July 09, 2007, 07:12:52 PM
I use both tactics. I do whatever is appropriate to the situation and exploit it. If it's wiping out ships, I do it. If it's eliminating objectives, I do it. Every game is different, and so must the strategy be.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 09, 2007, 07:30:46 PM
Do people build their decks / fleets with any specific strategy in mind?  Or do they build with a more general "strong ships and strong cards" philosophy?

I build for a "destroy objectives" philosophy.  I use cards and ships that can enable me to get to my opponent's home zone quickly and blow away their objectives while increasing my defense.

Anyone else build like this?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Phantom Regiment Fan on July 09, 2007, 09:09:22 PM
My deck/fleet is (obviously) built around destroying the enemy's fleet. To do this I have many droid icons on my ships and in my deck that prevent me from tacking damage/repairing damage.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Shadd on July 10, 2007, 04:36:55 AM
I would appreciate that.  Games which last all of 6 minutes are not very fun.  My friend and I thought they needed to do something to make Objectives harder.  Maybe make the rule 5 or so objectives.  The problem with that, though, is that one could get hella good bonuses by having some of those objectives in play.

There needs to be something changed about objectives.  Cause all you have to do is live through their turn attacking and then just beat the objective's defense number, which isn't hard with some of the ships and a few of the +2 to strike attempt objectives in play.  There were a few games where all I had to do was roll the dice to hit his objectives, and that's not fun.



Or allow a defending player to make an attack on any ships that fire onto it's Objectives or something.

I assume the balance was supposed to be that the Objectives sit in your home zone, but in practice that doesn't seem to help all that much.

Plus the carrier ability being an unlimited effect.  You bring in your star destroyer, bring in a **, and then keep bringing it back until they either destroy the star destroyer or you destroy all of their Objectives.

It's a bit wonky.


Watch out _J_, you are almost thinking like someone who can see where a house rule will make a game more challenging or fun?  :o

I know you are a die hard ?by the written rule? philosopher.  But I am pretty sure you will see even WK coming up with ?house rules? for their scenarios here in the near future.

With your dislike of 6 minute games being stated; I offer you this? try playing on a grid of 9.  3x3? 3 contested zones and 3 home zones per player, one OBJ in each square.  You will see a crazy different game when you actually have to manage your fleet.  And you won?t have to worry; your fleet will still be able to be used in standard play.  ;D

But back to the main post? If you want to kill Objectives, just load up on ?+strike/Asteroid hideout? Obj?s in your home sector. Then field droid ships and play ?damage cards, assassin droid and dice cards (to be used with asteroid hideout).  In 2 turns you will be in their home zone.  Attack their OBJ?s and keep your ships alive if they attack them.  But that, imho, would be boring; I play Imp (pure) swarm on a multi sector map  :D

I can?t wait for the release of Ground Assault!  :'(

Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Shadd on July 10, 2007, 01:49:54 PM
As I recall Pirates had a number of similar issues at launch.  As did Magic, and just about every other game.  You want to see rule holes?  Check out the Mordheim rules sometime.  Anyhow defending objectives will get easier as people settle out on the current and upcoming card-plays.  A good home territory fighter screen will help a lot too.

I love and still play pirates!

I agree to a point on the settle part.  I still believe even vs. a tweaked out deck and force, a "keep your ship alive" deck will still survive striking better then most assault decks like <leader><trooper>.***

Why do I think that?

If they attack your strikers, all you need is to have one ship survive.  So who cares if they get +60 attack, deal extra damage, sac a <trooper> for "X"; If you can Assassin, prevent "X" or just end the battle and keep your little +3 attacking striker alive.

So, imo, if you want to play a not so fun game? each player rush the other?s Obj?s and see who can get 3 successful strikes first.  Friends and I have tried, MANY times.  As _J_ put it, 6-min games are sad to see/play.

As a temporary fix, we use house rules/scenarios. 

On a side not, I think this game SHINES with 3+ players.  With <2, Strike-Rush seems like the no-brainer

Ground Assault I think will fix a lot? *drool*

*** I did not say rushing is a win all... Swamps/Tractor and other cards can and will impede a strike.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fineredvin on July 10, 2007, 06:49:50 PM
Do people build their decks / fleets with any specific strategy in mind?  Or do they build with a more general "strong ships and strong cards" philosophy?

I build for a "destroy objectives" philosophy.  I use cards and ships that can enable me to get to my opponent's home zone quickly and blow away their objectives while increasing my defense.

Anyone else build like this?

I do, and it works.  A Droid defense strategy.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: mattyh on July 13, 2007, 10:20:47 AM
Yeah, when I used to play multiplayer heroclix games with my friends, if one person sat back everyone would pretty much stop attacking each other team up on them.  It was pretty hilarious at times, though sometimes we had already weakened each other too much.

I played my first 3 player game of pocketmodels last night (it was also the first time my wife has ever been to a gaming store to play a game - she won btw) and it played well.  Everyone was good about not picking on anyone and it scaled pretty well.

Objectives actually held up strong.  It helped that two of us were playing Death Star Exhaust Port (14D). 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 13, 2007, 11:04:56 AM
Multiplayer games of this would get complicated, I think.  In terms of trying to politic the game and take people out without drawing fire.

Multiplayer games of Magic are somewhat straightforward, because one can attack a different person each turn.  But with ship movement in this game I don't know how one could do that fairly.  It seems like one would have to pick an opponent and go after their home zone, because equally spreading out over 2 or 3 opponents would leave no defenses.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Orangecoke on July 13, 2007, 02:57:40 PM
I play a pretty defensive game which I adapt offensively depending on what my opponent does. Sometimes he will wear out his fleet in my home zone, in which case I'll fly around trying to kill the rest of his ships. Sometimes he plays low defense objectives like Rebel Base which I will attack.  My tendancy is to put some interference ships in the contested zone that I can use to soften up destroyers as they pass through, or move forward to strike.

Defensively I play the high-def objectives as soon as possible (12+) because my opponent pretty much likes to fly ISD's into my home zone and start dropping off his high-attack Ties.

Y'know, we have yet to have a "6 min game". Our last game was ~ 25 mins and was totally awesome. VERY close game which I did manage to win, but only barely.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth_Ravin on July 22, 2007, 07:36:48 AM
Ok, I've got a question. How many objectives seems to be optimal in a 30 card deck? I'm thinking somewhere between 4 and 6 objective cards in a deck should give you a pretty good chance of getting them out early, but not having too many to clog your hand up with unusable cards during battles. What does everyone else think or find works for them?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on July 22, 2007, 07:47:56 AM
Depends on your build.

I run 12 objectives in my 38 card deck. All of my objectives are made to be cycled through as fast as possible (DSH, CIZ, MMP, DST) because with CIZ down, I get reserves out for playing objectives. I do sometimes run into a clog, but it's never hindered the playability.

HOWEVER

That is not typical. When I play my laser/torp build, I run into clogs quickly in a 30-35 card deck if it has more than 5-6 objectives. That DOES cause me big problems.

The concensus is that if you're not playing a very specialized deck, 5-6 is a good number. 7 sometimes, but you'd want to test it.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on July 22, 2007, 08:09:54 AM
Ok, I've got a question. How many objectives seems to be optimal in a 30 card deck? I'm thinking somewhere between 4 and 6 objective cards in a deck should give you a pretty good chance of getting them out early, but not having too many to clog your hand up with unusable cards during battles. What does everyone else think or find works for them?

I run 6 in my 30-card builds.  One game I had a bad shuffle where 3 of my objectives were in the last 6 cards, but usually it isn't a problem.  I have one special build that had 10 objectives in it, but that proved to clog the hand.  So, I am going to try 8 in that deck next time I play it.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth_Ravin on July 22, 2007, 07:00:42 PM
Thanks guys. Thats just about what I was thinking. I hadn't considered a deck that cycles objectives for their effects yet. Very intriguing, I'll have to try something like that sometime.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: McLando on July 23, 2007, 03:53:18 AM
I've been using 8 in my decks which doesn't seem to pose a problem.

It depends on your actual objective cards.  If you're using objectives that have an effect when they come into play (e.g. Death Star Hanger, Dagobah Swamp), you may want more in the deck to cycle through them.

If you're mainly using objectives whose effect stays in play (e.g. Death Star Trench) then use less, as you won't want to replace them as often, meaning they'll clog your hand.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on July 24, 2007, 10:13:47 AM
I prefer to go for ships. I like to be aggresive towards BIG ships, and play stalamte with the smaller one. When we play we dont even attack objectives. But i know when it comes tournament time, Objectives will be attacked alot. Then its just building your deck/fleet around keeping a few hard hitters in your own zone.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Sanchopanza on July 24, 2007, 10:37:05 AM
Playing online would be awesome. You'd have to have a way to make sure you registered your deck (like a barcode on the cards and individual #'s on the ships) so everybody doesn't just roll around with the best of everything they don't even have.

As for Objectives and Ships, I go for objectives when it's possible. A lot of people in my area play swarm decks with Mustafar and Kamino objectives making it almost impossible to kill off their enitre battery of ships. And, as I favor Droid, I have a much easier time rolling my Tantive IV in and taking out objectives.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Garris on July 24, 2007, 11:56:00 AM
Somewhere (wish I could remember, i think it was in one of my 50 new magazines) I read that there will be units that can sit on your objective and i guess protect them, plz someone else if you know anything else about this tell me.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Sevenout on July 24, 2007, 12:26:55 PM
I usaully play a well mixed of ship and objective battles. If I start doing poorly I head for objectives.

One game I played with a friend of mine not sure waht all ship I was playing with but most of them were 3-5 build stars with a few 1 build star ships. So my moovement was limited. My buddy played with Redemtion and a bunch of X-wings. I pulled 5 build stars worth of units out he moved 5 out, then I moved five out, then he did the same, I atacked a few ship with no hits [censored]ty dice rolls! The he moved into my home zone so I moved a few ships back he atacked my first face down objective destroyed it. Next three turn not hits on any of his ship and he took down all three of my face down objective one after the other!! Not a single objective card tuened up and I had at least 9 in a 30 card deck!!

Game lasted maybe 3 min, just swarmed by base couldnt do a damn thing.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: General Kenobi on July 24, 2007, 01:18:16 PM
Acitly i rather hit my oppents objectives i mean me and a friend have had matches that have gone on for more than an hour when we were attacking objectives and i was then knocking his ships down but objects are pretty much easier(excpt when you cant roll a good number... like 7)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on July 24, 2007, 01:38:36 PM
In most tournament formates Ive read/seen, it seems people are going straight for objectives. I, myself, havent had much fun doing this, it means for quick games. but i also know in most formats/tournaments speed is usually a good thing, i.e. magic the gathering. When we are just playing each other, we play to kill ships. but when a tournament comes around, we will rebuild our decks, mostly our objectives, and go a totally different way.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Sevenout on July 24, 2007, 02:04:13 PM
I ahve found the best time to strike objectives is while they still ahve face down card, if your lucky you might only have to strike battle cards also it  might keep them from getting really good battle cards in there hand by switching with an objective.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Lusien on July 24, 2007, 02:17:19 PM
I'll hit ships if the deck doesn't have a ton of recovery cards.

It's, IMO, much more sportsman like and much more fun to decimate a fleet.

Hitting objectives I reserve for last ditch efforts, and swarm/regen decks.

My one deck is only killable if you hit the objectives.  It averages about 2 stars of units regenerated per turn.

Perhaps higher, I'll calculate it out.  Either way it's impossible to get on top of that.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Sevenout on July 24, 2007, 02:51:11 PM
I really cant wait to see what Ground battle has in store for us. I know they havent said anything but I at least hope they have a ground battle sample at Comic-con this year.

Yeah objective strikes are a last ditch move most of the time for me allso.

Oh and with 3 player games and up there is alot my strike actions taken that 3rd player really changes up the strategy of a game.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on July 24, 2007, 03:13:08 PM
I prefer to strike objectives...thats just my style. With all the regeneration/damage removal fleets its a good idea and with swarm fleets you really have no choice. The ships are there to protect and strike objectives not fight each other all game, but to each his own. I think you'll see more objective strikes when ground assault comes out.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on July 24, 2007, 03:23:14 PM
Lets face it. objective strikes is what the game is pretty much about. It is hard to destroy fleets, easier for objectives. When in tournaments, i will redo my deck/fleet to help with protecting objectives, but when my lil group plays, we have it turn into ship battles. Why i run 2 Rebel Base's. but i agree %100, its a game to destroy Objectives!
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 24, 2007, 08:32:46 PM
I have two decks that I force my friends to play with when we have nothing else to do...and I think destroying Objectives is the better strategy.  It's far easier to destroy 3 objectives than it is to wipe out an entire fleet.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on July 24, 2007, 09:38:22 PM
I have two decks that I force my friends to play with when we have nothing else to do...and I think destroying Objectives is the better strategy.  It's far easier to destroy 3 objectives than it is to wipe out an entire fleet.

Depends on the build you're using though.

I personally play mostly attrition. I wipe out the opponents fleet by the sheer overwhelming of numbers. I tend to play defensively, and meet the opponent in the contested zone or in my home zone. It may seem backwards to allow someone into my homezone that is obviously geared to destroy objectives, but that is where I get my highest bonuses and easiest kills. However, if the opponent plays defensively as well, I've got the ships with high Attack+ (3 and 4) to take out objectives and I go on the offensive. I even sometimes go after objectives just to distract the opponent when necessary, because my ships can't be ignored (they will hit something - I get 4-5 chances with (10-11 to roll at absolute worst, usually 7-8) per action to do it.) Because there is no auto-miss rule, it -is- possible to attain an auto-hit on an objective. (2 Death Star Trench's and an Attack +4 unit, or 3 DST's and an Attack+3 unit, will auto-hit a combat card objective with defense 8. 3 DST's and an Attack+4 unit will auto-hit a defense 9 objective which includes Rebel Base.) I have done this on more than one occasion.

It's all in how you play, how your build is set up, and the same for your opponent(s). Both fleet attacking and objective striking are viable strategies when played properly in conjunction with an appropriate build.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fineredvin on July 27, 2007, 11:34:20 AM
I just hope when Ground Assult comes out -- if there is support for protecting objectives, there are some answers for swarm tactics.  The object protection will hurt the droid fast attack deck, which is the only thing I have found that can defeat the swarm deck.

fineredvin
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Agent-a12 on July 27, 2007, 07:42:46 PM
I like to keep my capitals and a few * ships in my homezone and let the rest go into battle.  If destroying the enemy's ships takes too long, or I'm getting destroyed instead, i can move my capitals and take out their objectives.  And an online game would mean that I wouldn't have to drive a long way to play anyone besides my family. I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: starkid92 on July 27, 2007, 10:30:02 PM
I go maybe 65% of my time destroying objectives. If my opponent goes after my ships i'll go and try to take out his ships in my zone and the contested zone so like he's congested in his home zone.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greatfrito on July 28, 2007, 10:02:54 AM
In the few times I've played, I've often been forced to go after objectives, once my fleet had already been torn in half.  In a 3-way battle I often have to hit objectives just because I usually get caught between two more powerful fleets, and don't have the time or resources to cover 2 to 1 odds.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on July 28, 2007, 07:43:13 PM
I have found only one person to play with up here but we usually find that going after objectives is the way to win. We have been playing lately with faction specific fleets and as close as we can to matching decks. The last game we played I went Imp and he went CIS. I used 2 Devestators, The Harasser, and the rest Ties. I put 1 Devestator in his home zone and just unloaded Ties til he killed him off. I got most of my ships out that way and took down his objectives. He made it interesting once he got rid of the first capitol ship he got into my home zone and unloaded as few. It was a good game and lasted about an hour.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on July 28, 2007, 10:13:22 PM
I have been using 9 or 10 with 3 Death Star Hangers. Those ones are one use throw away objectives so I dont mind replacing them. 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 28, 2007, 10:31:08 PM
I use 8 in my Objective destruction deck and 7 in my swarm deck.  I'm still tweaking the builds.

The last game I played I ended up with 3 objectives in my hand and no good way to get rid of them because the objectives in play were better than the ones in my hand.

Objectives are wonky.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 28, 2007, 10:39:46 PM
I have two decks/fleets.  One is Objective Destruction and another is a swarm.  So far my swarm has not beaten my Objective Destruction.

I even spent time this afternoon improving my Swarm and it still can't be my Objective Destruction.  So, in my experience, Objective Destruction is a lot better.

I want to find some other players so I can see someone beat my Objective Destruction deck/fleet.  I know it can't be that good, but I've yet to see it lose.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on July 29, 2007, 08:06:48 PM
I played a few more games today with my two decks.  I had my friend play with the Objective destroying one this time just to see how things went and I played with swarm.

The Objective destroying deck was still the better deck even with another player at the helm.  So I think the strategy, at least from my testing, of going after objectives rather than ships is the best strategy.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 08, 2007, 12:37:43 AM
Once I got a handle on the rules of SWPM and developed a respectable grasp of the dynamics of the game, one of the first issues that I found myself struggling with was how many objectives to include in a deck.  After playing the game for a while now, I still think the question hasn't been answered conclusively.  It would interest me a great deal to hear from the community about the sort of experiences people have had with tweaking the number of objectives used in various builds.

- Has anyone use so many objectives, they are constantly having to pass during battles due to a lack of combat cards?  How many is too many?
- Is it possible that there is no minimum number of objectives needed for a competitive deck, but that you can play with zero?  Has anyone yet tried an objectiveless deck?  What was the result?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Paxxil on August 08, 2007, 07:40:52 AM
The problem with having too many objectives is that they tend to clog your hand during important battles. I use 6-7 (20%-23% of the deck) and they still seem to cause a nuisance on occasion. I still feel that 6-7 is the right number as many of the objectives are very powerful so you do still want to draw them.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on August 08, 2007, 09:34:08 AM
I was using 6 in a 30-card deck.  Most of the time that worked ok, but there were times when I really needed an objective b/c my face down cards were getting slammed.

The last couple of times I have run 8 in a 32-card deck.  This has worked ok with only 1 turn that I can remember having a clog, but I was striking objectives at the time (rather than battling), so it turned out ok.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Dark Helmet on August 08, 2007, 09:49:39 AM
I generally use 1/6 of my deck on objectives, 2/3 on attacking, and the rest are favorites i like to play.  My ships are carefully selected to match icons with the cards, so flow goes pretty smoothly and I can go through my deck quickly and get the objectives out. 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: PhilipJFry on August 08, 2007, 10:11:16 AM
I have been playing with 9 objectives in a 30 card deck.  However, this is prone to clogs.  I need to do further playtesting to see whether the clog rish is worth the benefit that one gains from quicker access to their important objectives.

You know, what they really need is an objective that says "When you play this objective, search your deck for another objective card, and put that objective into play in place of this one."  Wait, that'd be busted.  Never mind.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 08, 2007, 10:23:19 AM
The problem with having too many objectives is that they tend to clog your hand during important battles. I use 6-7 (20%-23% of the deck) and they still seem to cause a nuisance on occasion. I still feel that 6-7 is the right number as many of the objectives are very powerful so you do still want to draw them.

I agree that objectives are very powerful.  After all, no other cards in your deck can have a continuous effect on the game. 

Between 6 and 8 seems much more reasonable to me than anything more though.  That's going to put the count between 20 and 25 percent of the total, which is still 1 objective for every 4-5 cards drawn.  Once you get three objectives in play and continue to cycle through the remainder of your deck, you are down to drawing only 1 objective in every 6 to 10 cards, so any tendency to clog should be significantly reduced at that point.

And yes...
You know, what they really need is an objective that says "When you play this objective, search your deck for another objective card, and put that objective into play in place of this one."  Wait, that'd be busted.  Never mind.
...that would be busted.  Search cards in a 30 card deck would be waaay to powerful.   :o
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: PhilipJFry on August 08, 2007, 10:42:51 AM
And yes...
You know, what they really need is an objective that says "When you play this objective, search your deck for another objective card, and put that objective into play in place of this one."  Wait, that'd be busted.  Never mind.
...that would be busted.  Search cards in a 30 card deck would be waaay to powerful.   :o

It'd be perfect if I was the only one allowed to use that card, though! 

No, wait, scratch that.  It'd still be busted, and o one would ever play against me again, and it would ruin the game for me.  It's an all around bad idea.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 11:01:52 AM
I use 9 in my deck and havent run into the problem of clogging. I use 3 Death Star Hangars and 3 Executor Bridges and 3 others. Mostly I use this combo because I dont have very many good ones yet. I also like that they are throw away objectives. If I have 3 out face up and I have 2 Hangars in my hand I can just play them over each other each turn and I dont worry about losing the effects of that objective.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Sanchopanza on August 08, 2007, 12:25:40 PM
Depending on the type of deck you play with you should gear your objective totals by how many slots you are willing to make into shuffling slots. If you run a droid deck you will, most likely, allot 1 slot to GDF. If it's purely droid cards you have, then 1 slot for GDF and one for Detention Block AA-23. That leaves one slot for DSH's, Swamps, whatever.

This of course changes for each deck and play style. But it's not bad to think about what you are trying to accomplish with your Obj.'s before you think about what you want to put into your deck.

6-8 usually keeps you from clogging up. I tried 10 once and I had a full clog at the end of my defensive turn. Luckily it was going to be the beginning on my attack run in a few seconds.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 01:39:50 PM
As long as you have Cloud City x3 I think any deck should be able to pull off 9 objectives.
This gives you huge drawing potential to thin out your deck by drawing more cards and playing an objective every turn.

If you are not running Cloud City and you do not want to get hand clogged I have found that 7-8 Objectives seems to do the trick.

The only time this becomes a big issue of clogging is if you are down to your last objective.  However, the game should be almost over by then anyhow......
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 08, 2007, 02:40:25 PM
As long as you have Cloud City x3 I think any deck should be able to pull off 9 objectives.
This gives you huge drawing potential to thin out your deck by drawing more cards and playing an objective every turn.
I don't see how this gives huge drawing potential - you effectively only get to draw one more card for each Cloud City.  However, I can defnitely see how it would help reduce clogged hands, as it would be harder to draw into 4 unplayable cards during combat, rather than just 3.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 02:44:48 PM
If you have 3 out you get 6 cards in your hand total.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 02:46:24 PM
As long as you have Cloud City x3 I think any deck should be able to pull off 9 objectives.
This gives you huge drawing potential to thin out your deck by drawing more cards and playing an objective every turn.
I don't see how this gives huge drawing potential - you effectively only get to draw one more card for each Cloud City.  However, I can defnitely see how it would help reduce clogged hands, as it would be harder to draw into 4 unplayable cards during combat, rather than just 3.

Replace an objective slot, you get that card and another card
Replace an objective, draw 2 cards
Either way, I just got 2 cards to increase my options for battling now
Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 02:47:19 PM
If you have 3 out you get 6 cards in your hand total.
Yep!
More cards = good
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: ncbarrett on August 08, 2007, 02:47:55 PM
I think Cloud City is one of the most useful objectives (Glad it was my first one, in my first booster pack)
I gives you more flexibility by having more cards.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 02:49:02 PM
The only problem I can see with having 3 of those out is they dont give any other bonus at all.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: ncbarrett on August 08, 2007, 02:53:57 PM

The only problem I can see with having 3 of those out is they dont give any other bonus at all.
But it doesnt matter what ships you are using. It can benefit any deck you build.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 02:55:29 PM
I can see how having the extra combat cards will help you in combat but not having Rebel base out or another like it that gives you a bonus on Strike Actions would hurt.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: ncbarrett on August 08, 2007, 03:01:35 PM
That is true, but then, that is why i said most useful, not most powerful. :)
and again you can always replace a cloud city with a rebel base when you draw it, if you want to.
3x cloud city in your hand means greater chance of pulling it, doesn't necessarily mean you need to put all three of them as your objectives.

just boils down to different styles of play i guess.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 03:16:39 PM
I've always said hand control wins every game.
The more options you have to work with, the better the odds are
The less options your opponent has to work with, the better the odds are
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 03:18:08 PM
Maybe when the GA comes out they will put an objective in it that cuts your opponents hand down a card.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 03:20:18 PM
Maybe when the GA comes out they will put an objective in it that cuts your opponents hand down a card.
That is what we old gamers call NPE (Negative Play Experience) and I would HOPE WK never does that.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 03:21:22 PM
They have other cards that limit things. Why would it be negative?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 08, 2007, 03:28:14 PM
They have other cards that limit things. Why would it be negative?
In this case, imaging putting 3 objectives in play that each reduced your opponent's hand by 1. 
Now imagine your opponent is a whiny little kid. 
Now imagine that the whiny little kid got to be that way because his rich parents spoil him by buying him whatever toys/games he wants. 
Okay, you just lost a player who feels the game isn't "fair" and went to get his dad to buy something else.

That's NPE!
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on August 08, 2007, 03:30:13 PM
They have other cards that limit things. Why would it be negative?
In this case, imaging putting 3 objectives in play that each reduced your opponent's hand by 1. 
Now imagine your opponent is a whiny little kid. 
Now imagine that the whiny little kid got to be that way because his rich parents spoil him by buying him whatever toys/games he wants. 
Okay, you just lost a player who feels the game isn't "fair" and went to get his dad to buy something else.

That's NPE!

Funny...I would use that same argument back in the Uniqueness thread as a reason to support the use of only 1 copy of each unique ship.  Same said kid gets beat down by 3 Falcons + 3 Vader TIES and quits the game.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on August 08, 2007, 03:31:01 PM
Ok so imagine teaching that whiny little kid that a good way to combat that card is playing the objective that alows him to have an extra card.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 08, 2007, 03:38:47 PM
Funny...I would use that same argument back in the Uniqueness thread as a reason to support the use of only 1 copy of each unique ship.  Same said kid gets beat down by 3 Falcons + 3 Vader TIES and quits the game.

Ah, but that's where the Pokemon effect kicks in.  See, if the kid feels that there are just "better" ships out there, he'll tell his dad to buy more of them.  It's okay if someone else has "more and better", because that motivates buyer behavior.  His jaw drops as he sees you pull out your Executor Super Star Destroyer and you hear him emit an awed "whoa, I gotta get me one of those!"

It's not okay if someone can take something of his away, because that puts him in a different psychological frame of mind - one that doesn't necessarily equate going out and buying more stuff as the way to solve the problem.  He already payed for what he had, and you just took it away.  Why should he go and get more?

IMHO, at least.   ;)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on August 08, 2007, 03:39:02 PM
Ok so imagine teaching that whiny little kid that a good way to combat that card is playing the objective that alows him to have an extra card.
If the opponent has down all 3 of that objective that reduces his hand size, the "Wormie" kid doesn't get a hand and thus cannot do anything for the rest of the game.
That is why it's called NPE
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: darth_heretic on August 10, 2007, 10:33:33 AM
I believe there are two different types of Objectives, Disposible and not disposible. Cards like Death Star Hanager, Dagobah Swamp, are disposible, they give you an ability and then there done. There is no use to having a Death Star hanager sitting on the table because it doesn't effect the game after you play it. On the other hand cards like Excecutor bridge, Rebel base, and death star exaust port you will want in play. they will effect the game as long as they are in play. SO using that logic i use 10 objectives. 6 of witch are disposible 4 arn't. if i need to keep a disposible objective in play thats alright, it still has a higher defense than a face down objective. That just my thinking...
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: ncbarrett on August 10, 2007, 10:50:02 AM
I believe there are two different types of Objectives, Disposible and not disposible. Cards like Death Star Hanager, Dagobah Swamp, are disposible, they give you an ability and then there done. There is no use to having a Death Star hanager sitting on the table because it doesn't effect the game after you play it. On the other hand cards like Excecutor bridge, Rebel base, and death star exaust port you will want in play. they will effect the game as long as they are in play. SO using that logic i use 10 objectives. 6 of witch are disposible 4 arn't. if i need to keep a disposible objective in play thats alright, it still has a higher defense than a face down objective. That just my thinking...

That is an interesting strategy.
I might try that.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on August 10, 2007, 03:06:03 PM
I believe there are two different types of Objectives, Disposible and not disposible. Cards like Death Star Hanager, Dagobah Swamp, are disposible, they give you an ability and then there done. There is no use to having a Death Star hanager sitting on the table because it doesn't effect the game after you play it. On the other hand cards like Excecutor bridge, Rebel base, and death star exaust port you will want in play. they will effect the game as long as they are in play. SO using that logic i use 10 objectives. 6 of witch are disposible 4 arn't. if i need to keep a disposible objective in play thats alright, it still has a higher defense than a face down objective. That just my thinking...

Flipping those Objectives is one of the things I haven't quite figured out.  I like the Objectives that have "when this is revealed" abilities, but like you said they are useless once they are in play.  The problem I have is when deciding whether or not I ought to include them in my deck.  For example, if my goal is to have 3 Mining Platforms in play ought I have other objectives in the deck?  Often these "when this is revealed" objective, if I draw it after the platforms are in play" end up filling my hand, and since there is no way to get objectives out of one's hand except by playing them it can get to the point where 33% or 66% or 99% of my hand is objectives which I don't want to play.

And NPE is a concept I don't quite understand.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 10, 2007, 05:21:58 PM
Flipping those Objectives is one of the things I haven't quite figured out.

Try this: Play with just three different objectives, but as many copies as you want.  One space on the board is reserved for each type of objective.  So for instance I play with CIZ, Death Star Hangar, and KCF.  Every time I draw an objective, I either play it in place of a face-down card, or in place of a copy of itself.  The CIZ gives me * for doing this, and I just keep cycling through them as I go through my deck.

I know it's tempting to put two KCF in play, and if you draw your second KCF with a Hangar on the board, it's fine to play it on the Hangar because the Hangar has no continuous effect.  But when you draw another hangar later on, you play it on the second KCF rather than holding it in your hand.  If you end up with just CIZ and/or KCF in play and start holding onto your Hangar, you will eventually jam up your hand, so avoid the temptation to do this.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on August 10, 2007, 05:35:37 PM
And NPE is a concept I don't quite understand.
As for NPE, a really good example would be Player Killing in a MMORPG.  Ever hear of a popular MMORPG that allowed PK on new playes by experienced ones?  No?  That's because it would cause too much NPE.  Sure, it's fun for the guys doing the PK, but not for the poor newb who can't even level up because someone is always killing him.  And if there are no newbs, then sales don't remain steady and the game goes away.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on August 10, 2007, 08:26:15 PM
I believe there are two different types of Objectives, Disposible and not disposible. Cards like Death Star Hanager, Dagobah Swamp, are disposible, they give you an ability and then there done. There is no use to having a Death Star hanager sitting on the table because it doesn't effect the game after you play it. On the other hand cards like Excecutor bridge, Rebel base, and death star exaust port you will want in play. they will effect the game as long as they are in play. SO using that logic i use 10 objectives. 6 of witch are disposible 4 arn't. if i need to keep a disposible objective in play thats alright, it still has a higher defense than a face down objective. That just my thinking...

Coruscant Industrial Zone makes all objectives disposable if you're running a swarm fleet. ;)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on August 10, 2007, 10:04:50 PM
And NPE is a concept I don't quite understand.
As for NPE, a really good example would be Player Killing in a MMORPG.  Ever hear of a popular MMORPG that allowed PK on new playes by experienced ones?  No?  That's because it would cause too much NPE.  Sure, it's fun for the guys doing the PK, but not for the poor newb who can't even level up because someone is always killing him.  And if there are no newbs, then sales don't remain steady and the game goes away.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread.  NPE seems very subjective.  So I can understand that players can find things to be not enjoyable suck as Player Killers or Objectives that hose certain types of decks, but as someone else said for some the ability to use multiple copies of Unique ships is a NPE and for others it's fine.  So trying to craft a game that does not create any NPE, while a noble goal, seems almost impossible given how subjective and based upon preferences the Play Experience is for every individual.

Your comment about Objectives was helpful.  I'll try that in the future.  I need to get some practice games in before Gen Con, after all.  :)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on August 10, 2007, 11:18:57 PM
I believe there are two different types of Objectives, Disposible and not disposible. Cards like Death Star Hanager, Dagobah Swamp, are disposible, they give you an ability and then there done. There is no use to having a Death Star hanager sitting on the table because it doesn't effect the game after you play it. On the other hand cards like Excecutor bridge, Rebel base, and death star exaust port you will want in play. they will effect the game as long as they are in play. SO using that logic i use 10 objectives. 6 of witch are disposible 4 arn't. if i need to keep a disposible objective in play thats alright, it still has a higher defense than a face down objective. That just my thinking...

Flipping those Objectives is one of the things I haven't quite figured out.  I like the Objectives that have "when this is revealed" abilities, but like you said they are useless once they are in play.  The problem I have is when deciding whether or not I ought to include them in my deck.  For example, if my goal is to have 3 Mining Platforms in play ought I have other objectives in the deck?  Often these "when this is revealed" objective, if I draw it after the platforms are in play" end up filling my hand, and since there is no way to get objectives out of one's hand except by playing them it can get to the point where 33% or 66% or 99% of my hand is objectives which I don't want to play.

And NPE is a concept I don't quite understand.

I'll break down the playstyle I use for objective flipping for ya to try to help you get a better handle on it.

The objectives I use in my 36 card deck are:
3x Mustafar
3x Death Star Trench
3x Death Star Hanger
3x Coruscant Indust. Zone

That's 12 out of my 36. I typically have 1-2 objectives in my hand at a time. The object is to be able to play an objective every turn. It would seem that the hand would jam with objectives, but that doesn't happen all that often. It can usually be remedied by on my turn withdrawing or passing after playing an objective. A combat card will almost always follow. If it doesn't, you can live though attack. You still have the dice after all.

What happens is I play objectives until all are face up. Then I start cycling them. I don't need to have 3x MMP down to be effective. A full 1/6 of my deck (CIZ and DSH) will bring units out of reserves with no need for combat. If I can't kill at least one enemy unit during the turns, I can still have a steady supply of units from reserves. CIZ gives me 1* every time I play an objective. DSH gives me 2* for playing it. I've gotten 5*'s of units back by having 3x CIZ down and playing DSH. This becomes important when the opponent uses reduction or capital ships where the number of units I'm destroying is small. MMP isn't as effective in those situations. CIZ and DSH pick up the slack and do it very well.

DST is there to give my units a bonus for striking and combat and is helpful for bringing units out of reserves (via CIZ). Objective management is important also. You've got to anticipate what objective to play and when to maximize your unit flow while minimizing the risk of a successful strike.

I hope that gives you a bit clearer view of objective cycling.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on August 10, 2007, 11:56:03 PM
But what if you are playing against an objective destruction fleet?  Wouldn't you want to have the objectives with the highest defense in play?  That's the problem I foresee and experience when I play.  I need combat cards to take down their strikers but my hand fills up with objectives that I don't play because they have a lower defense.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on August 11, 2007, 12:06:14 AM
I don't worry about it. The brute force applied by the swarm overcomes pretty much any strike team heading for objectives. Once they're in my homezone and I'm playing auto-hits, AL, or that kind of thing, they won't live through it long enough to do a strike. The defense on my objectives rarely matters. The one exception to that is Rebel Base and combat card objectives. Any units, striker or not, can hit those with no issue. I don't use cards that low. All the ones I listed have 11 or 12 defense. Plus, if you have CIZ down and they do destroy an objective somehow, you get more units out of your reserves for that alone.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on August 11, 2007, 12:08:43 AM
I don't worry about it. The brute force applied by the swarm overcomes pretty much any strike team heading for objectives. Once they're in my homezone and I'm playing auto-hits, AL, or that kind of thing, they won't live through it long enough to do a strike. The defense on my objectives rarely matters. The one exception to that is Rebel Base and combat card objectives. Any units, striker or not, can hit those with no issue. I don't use cards that low. All the ones I listed have 11 or 12 defense. Plus, if you have CIZ down and they do destroy an objective somehow, you get more units out of your reserves for that alone.

Alright.  I'll have to try this a few times this weekend.  Must con a friend into playing.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Rellic on August 11, 2007, 09:52:59 AM
Well i use 3X Coruscant Industrial Zone so with 3X DSH and 3X Kamino Cloning Facility and a few other i have close to 30-40% objectivs but i roll right through them and they only help it dose get annoying but you get usesd to it i think it depends on ur play and deck
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on September 03, 2007, 01:43:34 PM
I typically run with 6 objectives in my decks, 3 of two types as I am a streamlined and focused deck builder.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Robac on September 03, 2007, 01:55:48 PM
Usually 6-9, but I don't have three of any objective, so no huge-stacking-combo here :<
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on September 03, 2007, 04:39:40 PM
I run 12 in mine. That's a full 1/3 of my deck. I want to be able to cycle an objective every turn as it boosts resurrection tremendously.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on September 03, 2007, 05:25:50 PM
I run 6 in a 30 card deck (1/5).  Usually two each of three different objectives, so that I can have one of each out in play, although that depends on the abilities on the objectives.  Any more, and the risk of getting a dead hand during combat becomes more of a problem.  If I have good objectives with continuous abilities in play like Mustafar Mining Platform, Cloud City, Geonosis Droid Factory, Jedi Academy, Asteroid Hideout and Rebel Base, I'm not going to want to drop another objective unless it's a copy replacing the one I already have down.  This can cause a traffic jam in my hand, as I have no way of getting rid of extra objectives without losing the ability of a good one already in play.

For decks where I run more, it would have to be designed around objectives like Death Star Hangar that I can cycle through one every turn.  If I have two Coruscant Industrial Zones in play and am cycling Kamino Cloning Facitily, Death Star Hangar, and Dagobah Swamp in the third slot, I would not have a problem increasing my objective count to between 8 and 10 cards in a 30 card deck.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on September 03, 2007, 06:56:49 PM
I was running 6 in a 30-card deck (20%) but increased it to 8 in a 32-card deck (25%).  I have either 3 or 4 different types of objectives depending on the deck.

With 8/32 objective cards, there is an 85% probability that I will have at least 1 objective either in my opening hand or in the 3 face-down objectives (I teach statistics, so I know this calculation is accurate).  So, if my opponent is going after my objectives, I have a pretty good chance that one of them will have a higher defense value. 

With only 6/30 objective cards, this probability drops to 77%.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on September 03, 2007, 07:33:08 PM
I usually go with about 9 to 11 objectives in a 30 to 32 card deck. I use a lot of Throw away objectives with a few CIZs. That gets me more ships out faster.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: twopiearr on September 04, 2007, 01:58:54 AM
the closest thing i've seen to a "rule" around here is 9 objectives in a 30 card deck. This tends to make my hand a little objective heavy, so I usually go with 7 - the only objectives i have 3 of are Death Star Trench, which helps them as much as me (EVERYONE around here plays TIE swarm) or Degobah, which you don't really need 3 of...
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on September 04, 2007, 08:28:09 AM
I do 3 Death Star Hangars, 3 CIZs, 2 Dagobah Swamps, 1 or 2 Rebel Bases, a Mustafar Mining Platform, and thats about it. I usually put 6 1* ships and 2 2* ships in my reserves and these objectives help me to get them out fast. Any ships I have that are destroyed usually come back out pretty quick too.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on September 04, 2007, 09:38:36 AM
Ive never ran more than the base size of 3. Ive also never ran with more than a 30 card deck. IF, big IF, i do get to play in a tournamnet style format, ill prolly change this. Thing i worry about is, if your running a MMP Swarm Deck, what else you gonna run in it, Objective wise?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on September 04, 2007, 06:37:30 PM
Ive never ran more than the base size of 3. Ive also never ran with more than a 30 card deck. IF, big IF, i do get to play in a tournamnet style format, ill prolly change this. Thing i worry about is, if your running a MMP Swarm Deck, what else you gonna run in it, Objective wise?

My choices would be Death Star Hangar, KCF, and Jedi Temple.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on September 04, 2007, 06:41:40 PM
Ive never ran more than the base size of 3. Ive also never ran with more than a 30 card deck. IF, big IF, i do get to play in a tournamnet style format, ill prolly change this. Thing i worry about is, if your running a MMP Swarm Deck, what else you gonna run in it, Objective wise?

My choices would be Death Star Hangar, KCF, and Jedi Temple.

id perfer KCF, but i still need them too :( 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on September 04, 2007, 06:44:21 PM
Ive never ran more than the base size of 3. Ive also never ran with more than a 30 card deck. IF, big IF, i do get to play in a tournamnet style format, ill prolly change this. Thing i worry about is, if your running a MMP Swarm Deck, what else you gonna run in it, Objective wise?

My choices would be Death Star Hangar, KCF, and Jedi Temple.

id perfer KCF, but i still need them too :( 

I still need 3 LOL
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on September 04, 2007, 08:00:48 PM
In my Swarm deck I use

DSH x 2
KCF x 2
MMP x 2
DST x 2

I did have CIZ in there, but recently put KCF back in.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on September 04, 2007, 08:02:16 PM
I was running 3 Rebel base's. but we just play friendly, dont really attack objectives. But i want 2 more KCF's so i can run 3 MMP's and 3 KCF's
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Lady Revan on September 05, 2007, 09:11:23 AM
I keep changing my hand around depending on our campaign, but currently I have six objectives: Mustafar Mining Platform, Geonosis Droid Factory, Jedi Academy, Asteroid Hideout, Death Star Hangar, and Kamino Cloning Facility. If we're doing team campaigns, I'll switch my objectives around depending on which cards my partner's using.

One of our players didn't have a lot of ships or cards to choose from, most of his cards being luck cards. For a while we "banned" the Tatooine Desert Objective to help give him a fighting chance. Now that he has more cards to choose from, TD's back into play. I really liked it when that card was banned...
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Jester Karrde on September 05, 2007, 04:07:42 PM
I have run with as many as 12 before.  I do this when I have a deck that I will use all 3 DSH's.  I consider the DSH a "dead" objective.  After it is revealed it is useless.  I can replace it the very next turn with any obective that might be "clogging" my hand.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: obiwanjohn on September 10, 2007, 01:23:49 PM
Your 3 objective slots are very valuable.  Early in the game you need to replace face down cards with actual objective cards as soon as possible; especially, if you move 2nd.

So, what should a balanced deck consist of as far as objective cards?

Objective cards in hand can hamper your combat play but not having enough and your opponent will Strike at your weak face down objectives.  My thinking is a minimum of 6 objective cards to a maximum of 10.

What do others think?



 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: obiwanjohn on September 10, 2007, 03:23:10 PM
You could have 3 each of 3 different objective cards and actually reduce your deck size to 21 cards for all intents and purposes; by simply replacing the same card you have and discarding the old card.  Then you draw back to a full hand.

Basically, you cycle each of the 3 objective slots to insure you can mount a good 'objective defense' with high values but don't weaken your attack possibilities at all.  In fact, you're actually bringing your playable deck down to 21 cards and speeding up your draw.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: grimunderworld on September 10, 2007, 03:27:15 PM
I have run with as many as 12 before.  I do this when I have a deck that I will use all 3 DSH's.  I consider the DSH a "dead" objective.  After it is revealed it is useless.  I can replace it the very next turn with any obective that might be "clogging" my hand.

Agreed
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on September 10, 2007, 03:52:29 PM
You could have 3 each of 3 different objective cards and actually reduce your deck size to 21 cards for all intents and purposes; by simply replacing the same card you have and discarding the old card.  Then you draw back to a full hand.

Basically, you cycle each of the 3 objective slots to insure you can mount a good 'objective defense' with high values but don't weaken your attack possibilities at all.  In fact, you're actually bringing your playable deck down to 21 cards and speeding up your draw.

While I can see the logic behind your argument, there are a couple of problems:

1. You can only play one objective per turn.  So if you have a total of 9 objectives in your deck, then you will need a minimum of 9 turns to cycle all of your objectives into play or the discard pile.
2. You can only have 3 objectives in play.  So once you have cycled through your deck and have 3 objectives in play, 6 will be shuffled back into your deck along with the rest of your discard pile.
3. Every time an objective is destroyed, you can have one less objective in play.  So once the first objective is destroyed you will still have 9 objectives cycling through your deck, hand, and discard pile but one less slot to put the objectives in.

Certainly, playing one objective every turn would increase the rate at which you cycle through your deck.  But so would playing with all one-star ships, in which case you could play 5 combat cards per turn.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on September 10, 2007, 03:57:59 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: grimunderworld on September 10, 2007, 03:59:21 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives

I am totally confused by your argument.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on September 10, 2007, 04:05:02 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives

I am totally confused by your argument.
Yeah, because if you have 3 Cloud City in play, sure your hand is 6 cards, but you can't actually play another objective without replacing a Cloud City...  :-\
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: grimunderworld on September 10, 2007, 04:06:01 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives

I am totally confused by your argument.
Yeah, because if you have 3 Cloud City in play, sure your hand is 6 cards, but you can't actually play another objective without replacing a Cloud City...  :-\

Well, the way I read it, there are 6 copies of each objective in his deck?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on September 10, 2007, 04:08:11 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives

I am totally confused by your argument.
Yeah, because if you have 3 Cloud City in play, sure your hand is 6 cards, but you can't actually play another objective without replacing a Cloud City...  :-\
I'm not seeing a problem with that......LOL
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on September 10, 2007, 04:09:09 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives
Well, the way I read it, there are 6 copies of each objective in his deck?
I don't think he meant it that way...but if he did, that would be even more flawed logic.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on September 10, 2007, 04:11:56 PM
I meant I can play any other 6 objectives (total) in my deck
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Rogue4 on September 15, 2007, 01:13:42 PM
Cloud City x3 allows me to play 6 of any other objectives because I don't have to worry about getting my hand screwed over by filling it up with objectives

+1
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on September 16, 2007, 09:37:57 AM
I meant I can play any other 6 objectives (total) in my deck

You need to sen me those C.C.'s. :P
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on September 16, 2007, 02:01:58 PM
My decks have around 9 objectives.  3 copies of the 3 objectives I think are useful.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: grimunderworld on September 16, 2007, 02:54:39 PM
My decks have around 9 objectives.  3 copies of the 3 objectives I think are useful.

ditto
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on September 16, 2007, 03:35:53 PM
9 seems to be the best option. 3 objective slots with 2 permanent and one for cycling objectives...for more info on this see my  Deck & Fleet Construction Guide (http://swpocketmodels.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.0)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on September 16, 2007, 10:32:28 PM
9 seems to be the best option. 3 objective slots with 2 permanent and one for cycling objectives...for more info on this see my  Deck & Fleet Construction Guide (http://swpocketmodels.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.0)
Did you put a link to this in EVERY thread, or just MOST of the threads?   ;D
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: obiwanjohn on September 16, 2007, 10:46:36 PM
I still think 6 Objectives strikes the best balance.  (pardon the pun)   

The problem with having so many objectives is when its your opponents turn and you keep drawing objectives.  Suddenly, you have no cards to play.

I think Dagobah is a great objective card because you essentially gain 2 turns by moving opponent back to home zone.  So, I like having 2 or 3 of those.  Ship regeneration doesn't seem to be as important and you get some anyway with a defeated objective.  Coruscant Naval Base can give you that in a big way.  But, all your opponent will do is Strike that objective last (unless you have 2 or move on the board); which isn't likely.  Totally negating the value of this card.  (except if you're lucky enough to flip and see it there) 

DS Exhaust port is excellent as well.  But, there is no 6 best objectives to play.  It depends on your ships and overall strategy. 

You could be playing someone with a deck stacked with all Wild cards.  What do you do then?  Well, you ought to have 1 x of Detention Block AA23.  This is an example of a 'must' card.  You don't really want it...if you want a 'balanced' set of objectives, you should have it.


Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on September 17, 2007, 10:20:50 AM
It's all a matter of build. While Fanatic does have some good points about 9 being the "best", and others who feel there are different sweetspots, it all comes down to build.

I've said it before. My swarm runs 12 objectives (3x 4). All of them are indispensible. But I want to be SURE I'm cycling an objective every single turn. The regen I get from it overwhelms the opponents fleets and I have been undefeated in 1vs1 battles with it. So for my build, 12 is the sweetspot. For a droid deck, it may be 6-9. For a striking deck, it may be 5-6. It all depends on what else you have and how your fleet is designed.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Agent-a12 on September 17, 2007, 04:11:20 PM
Usually 6-9, just cause objectives are so good and I can't find any cards to replace them.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: _J_ on September 17, 2007, 04:45:45 PM
9 seems to be the best option. 3 objective slots with 2 permanent and one for cycling objectives...for more info on this see my  Deck & Fleet Construction Guide (http://swpocketmodels.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.0)
Did you put a link to this in EVERY thread, or just MOST of the threads?   ;D

It won't be read unless it's spammed.

I wonder if a deck without objectives would be viable...
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: fanaticopposition on September 17, 2007, 05:28:46 PM
9 seems to be the best option. 3 objective slots with 2 permanent and one for cycling objectives...for more info on this see my  Deck & Fleet Construction Guide (http://swpocketmodels.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.0)
Did you put a link to this in EVERY thread, or just MOST of the threads?   ;D

Any thread where its relevant ;D
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: darthtaterpc on September 17, 2007, 07:47:40 PM
I use 8 in a 30-card deck. They are usually what's appropriate for the build and multiple Death Star Exhaust ports(to stop objective destroying builds).That's all I use.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: GaryL on November 23, 2007, 11:49:08 AM
As it's a bit quiet I have this question.

It's time to objective swap. You have an obejctive like Dagobah Swamp and it's reveal ability is useless at this stage of the game. I.e. No enemy units in you home zone. But you have face down objectives. Do you swap it? Also would you still do the same at the start of the game or do you wait?

Is this the same answer for other cards like this?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on November 23, 2007, 12:15:46 PM
I would swamp for a face down objective always because you have a better chance of increasing the defense of that objective and getting a useful card in your hand.

I always keep Dagobah swamp in my hand until my opponent is in my home zone.  It effectively negates 2 turns that way.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: GaryL on November 23, 2007, 01:38:37 PM
That makes sense, cheers. Okay some more cards, what would you do?

Death Star Hangar (Def: 11) - With no reserves
"When this objective is revealed, put [2BuildStar] of units into your home zone from your reserves."

Kamino Cloning Facility (Def: 12) - With nothing to clone
"When this objective is revealed, put up to four [1BuildStar] units (that have the same name or names as units in your home zone) into your home zone from your reserves."

Ewok Village (Def: 9) - With no damage and its got a low defence value
"When this objective is revealed, remove a damage counter from every friendly unit."

Support Ship (Def: 9) - With no units in contested zone and its got a low defence value
"When this objective is revealed, if you have a unit in the contested zone, put up to [3BuildStar] of ground units from your reserves into the contested zone."

Kashyyyk Beachhead (Def: 10) - With no revealed objectives for the oponent
"When this objective is revealed, choose an opposing objective. The opponent puts it on the bottom of his or her deck and then replaces it with a new face-down objective."

I'm using this information to for the computer to work out what's it doing in the first version of the game.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: donyoda on November 23, 2007, 02:26:42 PM
DSH - I would wait if I could

KCF - I would replace something if KCF had a higher defense than say a DSH or Swamp or something like that that wasn't being used anymore

Ewok - I would not play the card at all LOL

Support - tricky card, I'm still looking at that one.  If anything I would wait because of the low defense

Kashyyyk - Same as above

I'd hold out if I could; obviously if there are face down objectives or my hand has nothing but objectives I would play that card regardless.  Hope that helps
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: GaryL on November 23, 2007, 02:34:25 PM
Yep that helps at the moment for the computer it breaks down each card:

No - Not Possible
Poss - It's an objective but not relevant
Yes - The card works

If I have Yes's then randomly pick one (I will be assigning weighting at a later date)
Else If I have Poss's then randomly pick one (I will be assigning weighting at a later date)

Weighing will be based upon how useful it is based upon the status of the game. Reserves at useful when you have limited unit, Cloud City is always useful, D. Swamp is the best choice if it is Yes. Etc.

It hard thinking of all the possibilities hence get other person thoughts and you said two things I hadn't even thought of writing in, which was "nothing but objectives" and "something like that that wasn't being used anymore".

So cool and thanks +Force to you
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: twopiearr on November 23, 2007, 04:44:41 PM
Assuming that you always want to get objectives out of your hand, I'd structure the logic something like this:

First Condition: Does the objective in my hand have a "do this when reveal" power?
  If yes, skip to second condition
  If no, does the ability affect my opponent's units in my home zone?
    If yes, are there any in my home zone?
      If yes, swap for a face-down objective
      If no or if no face-down objectives, skip to second condition
    If no, continue

Second Condition: Does the objective have an ongoing boost to me?
  If yes, swap with a face-down objective
  If no or no face-down objectives, continue

Third Condition: Do I have any face-down objevtives?
  If yes, swap with a face-down objevtive
  If no, continue

Fourth Condition: Do I have any face-up objectives with a "reveal" effect?
  If yes, does it have a lower defense value than the objective in hand?
    If yes, swap it out
    If no, continue
  If no, is there a copy of the objective currently in play?
    If yes, swap it out
    If no, continue

Fifth Condition: Do I have any objectives in play with a lower defense score?
  If yes, is the card "better" than this one?
    If yes, skip to sixth condition
    If no, swap it out
  If no, continue

Sixth Condition: Is this objective "better" than any objective in play?
  If yes, swap with that one
  If no, swap with a random one
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: CaptAntilles on November 23, 2007, 05:45:21 PM
It really always comes down to one question:  what is the best way to accomplish your goal (destroy all of your opponent's objectives or units) while simultaneously preventing your opponent from achieving his goal (destroy all of your objectives or units)?  You really have to ask yourself this question every time a choice appears during the game.

For instance, a weakness I have seen in many players is trying to hold onto a card too long because they are waiting for the perfect opportunity to play it.  It might be better to drop the high defense objective earlier, even though you don't get the full benefit of the card.  Once all of your objectives in play already have a solid defense rating, then it is more practical to hang onto them until a more opportune moment.

It's better to nickel-and-dime a win than to lose while holding out for a windfall.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: GaryL on November 27, 2007, 10:28:51 AM
Assuming that you always want to get objectives out of your hand, I'd structure the logic something like this:

First Condition: Does the objective......

Thank you for the work thought out response when I come to upgrade the objective swapping routine. I will definately use this. +Force to you.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: GaryL on November 27, 2007, 10:33:39 AM
For instance, a weakness I have seen in many players is trying to hold onto a card too long because they are waiting for the perfect opportunity to play it.  It might be better to drop the high defense objective earlier, even though you don't get the full benefit of the card.  Once all of your objectives in play already have a solid defense rating, then it is more practical to hang onto them until a more opportune moment.

It's better to nickel-and-dime a win than to lose while holding out for a windfall.

Very true. Personally I don't fall into this trap due the my deck building generally don't use these sort of cards and as such it has never come up. But now I am writing an online version all the questions come up.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Starkiller77 on December 09, 2007, 06:26:01 PM
When I play, I always want to destroy every single one of my opponent's units.  The way the game flows now, doing this just isn't a practical way to win, so I made up some alternate striking/objective rules.  I haven't tried them yet, but think they should be pretty fun...

The main idea here is that you can't lose the game to strikes.  You lose each objective that gets hit by a strike, and you can't play them again.

- If you lose an objective from a strike, place that card OUT OF PLAY.  The card does NOT go to your discard pile, it goes to a new pile of cards that you can't use again that game.  Replace the card with a new face down card.

- If you replace your own objective card with a objective from hand, the old card goes to the discard pile like normal.

- If you lose all your objectives to strikes, you will still have 3 face down cards that you can't access.  This is one drawback to not defending your objectives, in addition to losing all your cool objective bonus text.  Depending on how well you know your deck, you may or may not have an idea of what these mystery cards are...

- When you successfully strike a card, your opponent gets to retrieve x* of units like normal.

- You can still strike a face down card, but you will only benefit if it turns out to be an objective (if your strike is successful, it is placed out of play).  If it is a combat card, it just gets replaced with another face down card and your opponent gets some units back.


Try them out and tell me if you like them or not.  (and yes, I will use Decipher terminology til I die)

Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: bbjason74 on December 30, 2007, 12:52:29 PM
The SWPM game mechanics are solid.

Defending objectives is a serious concern, as it should be, but we have the means within the game mechanics to easily defend objectives.

It is my position that players can overcome "objective rushes" by deploying a balanced force.

The Contested Zone is your "filter zone". Use the Contested Zone!

Just minimize the number of units that reach your Home Zone.

Fleets cannot be built entirely of 4 and 5 star units because the smaller units slip past your defenses to strike objectives.

Thoughts?


Jason
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on December 30, 2007, 01:45:36 PM
From my experience, using the Contested Zone to slow your opponent's approach only really works if you are the player going first.  If you are second, then your opponent will fly right past your first wave.  Now, you still should have a formidable force to combat that wave in your HZ, but if your opponent comes five 5 * units, unless you have a bunch of * units yourself, you cannot take them all down before their first strike.

This is why Swarm decks are usually able to defend against objective rushes b/c they have so many * units waiting in their HZ to combat the rushers. 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: bbjason74 on December 30, 2007, 04:55:26 PM
Very good points, of which I agree entirely with you.

If you happen to play second and your opponent advances into the contested zone with 5 * units, then it is my opinion, you should still advance into the CZ with 5 * units of your own.

Then, if your opponent on his second turn advances into your HZ then you should have an additional 5 * units to engage on a one to one basis. Hopefully eliminating as many objective strikers as possible.

I am suggesting that 1/3 of your force consist of 1 * units.

This, in addition to some cards can deny your opponent an opportunity to strike your objectives, in turn forcing him to engage your units.


Jason
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on December 30, 2007, 09:14:42 PM
I'm in agreement for the most part here. I heavily favor a swarm, even with the new GA units and cards (there were some great additions). If I go first, I move my strikers out of which I always maintain a "squadron" (1x Black Squadron + 3x +4 strikers). If I go second, I still move my strikers out first, but I'll kill any enemy strikers as soon as they move in my homezone. 9/10 times I get them all. That then leaves me in the position as if I had gone first to move my strikers in after my opponent moves out into the CZ.

Fleets without substantial 1* units are at a distinct disadvantage. I'd say that a fleet should consist of at least 1/2 1* units so as to maximize the units in reserves (so it's always possible to pull them out) and have sufficient units to kill an objective rush.

+force for an insightful series of posts.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Greenosaur on December 30, 2007, 11:31:11 PM
Here is a lil bit of experience knowledge with this. I played bbjason74 over the weekend. I ran True Swarm our 2nd day of play. He won 2 out of 3. Even with me having the numbers on my side, with death star hanger, dagobah swamp, rebel base, and the ability to run armor & droid (damage reduce), plus card like seismic, i was killing myself off and not getting the kills to cycle my swarm affectivly.

 There is some great ways to go with GA, and affectivly slow down, or stop swarm.

 Also if your curious of how or what my build was, here it is, pretty much: http://swpocketmodels.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0

Thanks, Green
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: gambitking on September 02, 2008, 05:05:34 PM
Well, the Objective Rush strategy is almost completely dead.  I have gotten to see more of the sets and newer cards in the newer sets.

And, when I play, I usually go up against one of the toughest Objective Rush builds imaginable ( thanks to kjg ) .  So I'm familiar with it, and sometimes hate it.  But there's rejoicing in order, as the final nail in the Objective Rush coffin gets hammered in.

Wiz Kids and community members all buzzed about balancing out the game against objective rushing, and it's damn near come to fruition.  I think I've gotten a solid card list together that reflects an utter demise to Objective Rush builds.  But there are bound to be even more solid counter-agents to the Rush to come, and maybe some I've missed.

If you think the Objective Rush is still very much alive, consider going up against the following build with an objective rush:

Objective Cards
Death Star Exhaust Port x3
Dagobah Swamp x3
Thwarted Plans x3
Kidnapped Huttlett x3
Imperial Blockade x3
Captured Jedi Temple x3
Echo Base x3
Mace Windu x3
Jabba's Palace x3

Combat Cards
Boss Nass x3 (optional)
Peacekeepers x3

The units are irrelevant, really, as long as you have at least one :leader:, one :elite: for your combat cards, and a five-star unit for Jabba's Palace
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Rogue4 on September 02, 2008, 07:01:42 PM
Captured Jedi Temple, i dont think so much....If you're going for the jabba's palace + kidnapped huttlet, you should rather add in death star exhaust port. :)  Nothing like forcing your opponent to attack your defense 15 objective instead of your 14 ;).

Yeah, i'd agree that the objective rush is really really toned down.  The first turn advantage is almost gone now.  One of my favorite cards is Battle of Yavin (combined with Echo base), it really makes bigger 3-star units finally more effective at defending. 
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: gambitking on September 03, 2008, 09:53:03 AM
AHHH!!! Whoooops, I left DSEP off the list.... I had it at the very top of my original when I was typing, you're right on the money Rogue4.

I have edited my post as such. 

Obviously, Death Star Exhaust Port is guaranteed in this build, it has to be.

Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: kjg on September 05, 2008, 10:43:43 PM
that's alright, wait till you see my ki-ati-mundi x30 card build
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Rogue4 on September 06, 2008, 01:27:57 AM
that's alright, wait till you see my ki-ati-mundi x30 card build

House rules, I assume? ;)
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: gambitking on September 09, 2008, 10:34:11 AM
that's alright, wait till you see my ki-ati-mundi x30 card build

House rules, I assume? ;)

Don't listen to kjg, Rogue.  Even if ANYONE allowed him to play with 30 Ki-Adi-Mundi's....

He would have to spend a thousand dollars trying to get them all.... and it wouldn't matter anyway because all his ships would be dead in three turns after jumping straight into my home zone over and over.

So really... you might as well only play with three after all.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: DestroyingAngel on January 17, 2009, 08:51:42 AM
Just wondering, how many Objective cards do most players tend to have in a deck of 30 cards? Is there a limit?
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: grimunderworld on January 17, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
There is no limit, and it depends on your build.

I have seen very effective builds using nothing but objectives as well as some that use very few.

I tend to use 9-15 in a 30-40 card deck.

A lot also depends on what you are going for.

Good luck, hopefully you find your own balance soon enough.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: DestroyingAngel on January 17, 2009, 10:49:08 AM
Many thanks. I currently use around six objectives based around an even mix of Clone Wars Jedi fighters, clone ground forces and light fighters. Still working on it though.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: gethralkin on January 17, 2009, 11:58:02 AM
There is no limit, and it depends on your build.

I have seen very effective builds using nothing but objectives as well as some that use very few.

I tend to use 9-15 in a 30-40 card deck.

A lot also depends on what you are going for.

Good luck, hopefully you find your own balance soon enough.

A third of your deck (about 10, more or less) will allow your cards to cycle during combat (as you'll have enough of them) without getting your hand stuck all the time with objective cards, and still be enough so that your objectives won't be scarce as you draw cards.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: pganascar on January 17, 2009, 12:26:52 PM
I usually run with 12 objectives in my 30-card builds.  Usually 3-6 of those objective cards are "one and done", in other words they have an immediate impact when played but no lingering ability.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: gethralkin on January 17, 2009, 03:40:52 PM
I usually run with 12 objectives in my 30-card builds.  Usually 3-6 of those objective cards are "one and done", in other words they have an immediate impact when played but no lingering ability.

Good point. Designating a certain "objective slot" (or slots) for cycling through your one-use objectives, while the others can be reserved for whatever strategy you set up for multiple objective stacking, can also be beneficial.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: DestroyingAngel on January 19, 2009, 03:25:04 PM
Thanks for that guys. Sure given me something to think about
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: madd on January 20, 2009, 04:11:44 PM
i guess i am low on what i use its only 6-8 depends on the deck but i only play against my wife and so often as other games we both mainly go for taking out all the units
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Castle on January 20, 2009, 09:00:17 PM
Using a "disposable objectives" slot can work very well in conjunction with certain objectives such as Coruscant Industrial Zone. It allows you to cycle through objectives and you get to pull ships out of your reserves with it. I usually play with about 10 objectives in a 30 card deck and I use this method to not get stuck with a handful of objectives.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Darth Loki on January 21, 2009, 06:29:31 PM
My first Imperal Fleet deck relied on two copies of CIZ while churning through Death Star Hangars as quickly as possible.  :)  Finding other one-shot objectives as time went on just made it more fun.


Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Porpman on January 22, 2009, 01:40:38 AM
The build that I'd call a power build has 12 objectives in a 36 card deck. When constructing other decks, I tend to stick with 7-9 in a 30-40 card deck.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Rogue4 on January 23, 2009, 11:33:42 AM
I never go past 15 (1/2 deck), but that assumes cycling cards like TRP, etc.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: kjg on January 23, 2009, 10:08:51 PM
i like to have about half my deck objectives, many of which are one and dones. cards like boss nass (ground assault), altering the deal, cloud city and theed royal palce help to cycle faster. i'ld rather be clogged in my hand than have 7 defense battle cards getting struck.
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Donosis on January 25, 2009, 03:41:19 PM

  I usualy have 10 to 12 objectives, but I have never played against anyone other than TMD, but I  have some good butt-kicking builds. :yoda: Kick butt I do, hmm, yes. :yoda:
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: Povverz2112 on March 01, 2009, 11:22:10 AM
Ive read a thread about an all objective build, and from what I heard it works pretty well. 

also, I am trying to make a jedi-discard deck that uses 15 objectives
Title: Re: Strategy: Objectives or Ships?
Post by: shrapnelsmile on March 02, 2009, 10:01:38 PM
With cycling objectives I enjoyed a solid 1/3 of the build, at least for higher card # decks.