Star Wars Unlimited 4K Top 4 | Semi-Final Match | Iden Blue vs Sabine Red | SCG CON Richmond

The video coverage from the Star Wars: Unlimited 4K at SCG CON Richmond continues with the Top 4 Semi-final match. Today's feature match is Iden Blue (Jordan Hanning) vs Sabine Red (Garrett Steedly).
Deck List - Jordan Hanning (8-1): swudb.com/deck/HvTMDLnDKYfEd
Deck List - Garrett Steedly (7-2): swudb.com/deck/DaSLLsfLEodm
A big thank you goes out to Star City Games for putting on this awesome event. You can find their events here, scgcon.starcitygames.com.
For business inquiries, contact me at [e-mail]
Help support Next-Gen Gaming SC through Patreon - patreon.com/nextgengamingsc
You can follow Next-Gen Gaming SC on Facebook and Twitter for channel updates and Star Wars: Unlimited news such as event coverage, etc. Links below!
Facebook - profile.php?...
Twitter - / nextgengamingsc

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

I just wanted to clarify again for everyone that there was no Top 8 (quarter-finals) coverage. The Top 8 decided to split the cash prizes, and only four players from the Top 8 wanted to stay and play for the trophy. Thanks again to everyone for all the support!

[@joshuastewart3131]

I'm in agreement with the judge. Garret proved he knew what Childsen did in game 2 when he used aggression to clear him out. Part of competitive play is keeping in mind the state of the board before you make any decisions. Especially in a back and forth game like SWU. The same rule applies in chess. Once you make a move and take your hand off the piece declaring it, you can't take it back even if you see the checkmate right afterwards. That's the difference between a casual and competitive event.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

This is an excellent statement and a very fair assessment.

[@Shunanigens]

i actually disagree with this call as u declare what you attack and with whom at the same time, sentinel is like 5th or 6th thing you check for, which just makes it an illegal declaration (ie. saying i force choke a space unit) should just be a judge warning and pick again or do something else

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

​@@Shunanigens You certainly have a point. There was a similar issue with regards to an illegal target in the second game when Jordan played Vigilance. He chose the 'defeat a unit with 3 HP or less' and 'heal 5 damage'. Since it was an illegal option due to the A-Wing having 4 HP with Dodonna on the board, the judge had Jordan choose a legal option on Vigilance.

[@professorbulk6415]

Thanks for covering this!

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

You're welcome! It has been a lot of fun!

[@pattysnyder7745]

Awesome video as always. Excellent job on the commentating. Very professional. Keep it up 👏🙂.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

Thank you very much!

[@sebastiankalinski2718]

Great content as usuall.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

Thank you for your support!

[@ninjaferret7]

Lame that Jordan forced the Sabine attack onto childsen

[@sadworldwide]

Judge forced him to play the vigilance after he couldn't kill the a-wing, it goes both ways

[@ninjaferret7]

​@@sadworldwide Yeah I suppose that's fair, just feels bad

[@SawseTV]

@@ninjaferret7 Certainly didn't feel great (Garrett is actually local to me too which made it worse)... especially after so many weeks of weekly plays and casual friendly games then going into a highly competitive environment and enforcing rules.. but that is the dichotomy of competitive vs casual.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

@@sadworldwide That was a very different situation. It wasn't that the judge forced him to play Vigilance. It was really a question of was Jordan able to choose a different option on the card, since his first option of defeating the A-Wing could not be resolved with an illegal target. Jordan had no choice about whether or not to play Vigilance, as it was his only option to not lose on Garrett's next action. The issue in Game 3 was quite different. Garrett certainly did not have to attack with Sabine in that situation and would have likely been much better off not doing so, especially considering the fact that he had Aggression in hand. He simply forgot that Childsen was there with sentinel. We may be trying to compare apples to oranges in this context. With all of that being said, Jordan was well within his right to want the rules to be followed. An attack was declared, which means a legal target must be chosen.

[@tcgmetaslayer4202]

No good sportsmanship here. Competition brings out the dark side sadly...

[@miller857]

Great video, this makes me want to check the game out. But I do have to say, man, it got old being reminded over and over and over that this event was at SCG con Richmond and was a 4k. its on the screen, in the video name. we dont need it reiterated every two minutes in a 51 minute long video

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

Thanks! it is a great game for sure. So as for me repeating that at least once in each game, I do that because when I do the commentary I treat it as if it were a live broadcast. My goal for each video is to make the viewer feel like it was live. If it was indeed live, the caster should give those details (round, event, etc.) to the audience periodically throughout each match, because there would be new viewers joining the stream constantly. I hope this makes sense.

[@gregoryolenski4650]

Superlaser blast. I didn't realise you can resolve each unit's defeat individually in a specific order so that Iden's ability can still trigger. Does anyone have a rule reference for that play?

[@acedobleace]

The active player resolved the order of "when defeated" triggers, not the order of unit's defeat which is irrelevant in that particular case. All units were defeated simultaneously and Iden's ability sees that regardless if her ability was triggered first or not, she would still heal 3 damage from base.

[@gregoryolenski4650]

@@acedobleace thank you. I guess I didn't think Iden's ability would trigger when she's been defeated.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

@@acedobleace Thank you for the clarification!

[@3dkillers8832]

Everybody is talking bad about jordan, but it is both player's responsibility to read each card and know what cards do, especially at that stage of competitive play.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

This is an extremely fair assessment.

[@zombieloki9575]

With that many dice on top of the card, it's unrecognizable.

[@Magidex]

I think it was a huge misplay to defeat Entrenched. One cargo ship had 1 damage on it, Sabine + Entrenched kills it, and saves 4/8/12 damage later. If Sabine's going to die anyways, might as well be on his own terms.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

You make a solid point for sure.

[@lucaspetroulakis8583]

respectfully, you never willingly discard For a Cause

[@lucaspetroulakis8583]

btw, for just a fleeting motion, calling the judge for a sentinel issue, even in competitive play, is utterly lame, and that is coming from a big showdown winner and a looooong time competitive tcg player

[@SawseTV]

@@lucaspetroulakis8583 Few Things: I did not call a judge. The head judge is sitting next to us. It wasn't a fleeting motion. You cannot hear it in the audio with the commentary over top but he verbally declares it which is why I point to Childsen. Showdowns are casual events. Good job though!

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

Discarding For a Cause can be quite dangerous for sure!

[@lucaspetroulakis8583]

@@SawseTV casual but big events. That’s why I mentioned it. No one goes to play to lose, do they?

[@SawseTV]

@@lucaspetroulakis8583 Depends on your definition of big. This event had 129 players as a competitive event. No, people aren't intending on losing. But, if your a competitive player, you know that you should never expect your opponent to let you take back a play at an event like this. Did it feel good? No. But, honestly, I wasn't even sure the ruling on the attack. I was pretty sure I heard you still had to attack at some point, but asked for clarity from the judge on the exact rule, which he then enforced. It was not out of malice.

[@wmolders8160]

It seems like game designers always give control a leg up at the beginnings of their game's life. It's too bad because it is fun to see a board smack into each other rather than wipes, card advantage, etc. of good old blue that always seems to be a side to say: No fun for you!

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

That is a fair assessment. it is definitely a lot of fun to commentate the games with great back and forth action from both sides.

[@loganseagroves8490]

that iden deck looks miserable to play against

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

It can be tough for sure.

[@jasonmoreno1402]

A friend of mine runs Iden Blue, it makes the game so boring. I've lost all interest in playing. I beat him with a Vader Blue, longest game of my life.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

@@jasonmoreno1402 Don't give up! There are some decks that the Iden Blue really struggles against, one of those being Vader Green. I am also sure we will see a lot of awesome new decks when the next set releases in July!

[@DanD20]

If Jordan forced Garrett to attack in game 3, that was completely lame. He needs to keep his board state clear, so it must be clear he has a sentinel...put a token on your guy so the opponent knows something is up. Just hate it when players are greedy for wins like that.

[@SawseTV]

There is no such thing as a sentinel token. The card text is not obscured and this is top 4 of the 2nd largest US tournament to date. Also, in game 2 I played vigilance on an illegal target and the head judge ( Who is sitting next to us ) ruled I had to choose legal modes. I couldn't take it back. If the rules apply to me, they apply to my opponent as well. Garrett is local to me and I did feel a little bad though in the moment and told him as such outside after the game.

[@DanD20]

@@SawseTV I remember vigilance, figured you needed the HP regardless. I just think taking back a card played is one thing, but taking back an illegal attack that has yet to affect the board state is quite another. The judge is a lame. Sorry to place the blame on you. P.S. I know this is a competitive scene. I'm all for keeping things fair both ways. But it was just a lame decision considering the circumstance.

[@SawseTV]

@@DanD20 In this instance, yes, I did need to heal. However, taking back a card and taking back an attack is the same thing. You declare your intention to attack or play a card, then you choose targets/modes for that card. If it is illegal you have to make it legal. The judge did what he was supposed to do which is enforce the rules. If this was earlier in the swiss even I would have been fine with a redo, but this was in the top cut.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

The Vigilance and Sabine mishaps were quite different. With the Vigilance mishap, it was really a question of was Jordan able to choose a different option on the card, since his first option of defeating the A-Wing could not be resolved with an illegal target. Jordan had no choice about whether or not to play Vigilance, as it was his only option to not lose on Garrett's next action. The issue in Game 3 was something else entirely. Garrett certainly did not have to attack with Sabine in that situation and would have likely been much better off not doing so, especially considering the fact that he had Aggression in hand. He simply forgot that Childsen was there with sentinel. We may be trying to compare apples to oranges in this context. With all of that being said, Jordan was well within his right to want the rules to be followed. An attack was declared, which means a legal target must be chosen. Both players played extremely well all day, and I look forward to seeing them both in future tournaments!

[@OpiumSamurai]

Every Sabine player knows full well what Childsen does as it's one of the top anti-aggro units. Sabine had a brain fart, plain and simple.

[@harrisonomalley3962]

Total bs that he was forced to attack Childsen. Very poor sportsmanship

[@Magidex]

It's a literal tournament with money on the line. This ain't a casual pickup game at your LGS.

[@TheOtisMorgan78]

@@Magidex Prizes had already been split.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

It was an unfortunate situation, and I am sure that both players hope to avoid this in the future.

[@jonnjonzz5702]

Seeing that they already split the winnings, the actions made by Jordan are very scummy... Hope 1st place was worth it.

[@Next-GenGamingSC]

This was an unfortunate situation. Jordan played extremely well throughout the event, and I am sure he hopes to avoid situations like this in the future.

[@zombieloki9575]

Skummy players in blue, always.