RegisterDonateLogin

The Force is with Bloo Milk, but it is not a Jedi yet.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

10 point gambit abuse Options
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:15:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
This deserves its own thread.

Chargers wrote:

* Sidetracking for a moment: Gambit points need to be reined in. 5 points was good and encouraged battling vs turtling. 10 points is excessive ... a) it typically rewards the first person to win the race to get there, not necessarily the one trying to fight and b) games can be won on gambit points and not kill points, and kill points are the basis of the game. Take it back to 5 points, but keep it that only 10+ point figures can earn it. Yeah, I get the 'but I'm risking a 10 point figure so I should get 10 points' argument. But realistically it becomes a risk of a 10 point figure to earn 10*multiple rounds of gambit. That's not balanced.


Fully agreed, and clearly many others do too.

DarthMaim wrote:
+1 to Chargers suggestion to change the Gambit rule to "10pt mini in Gambit to score 5 pts" ThumpUp


CorellianComedian wrote:
Not a competitive player, but I'd throw my vote behind Charger's suggestion as well. I can think of a few times off the top of my head where I won a game I shouldn't have because of high gambit.


Darth O wrote:
Agreed on Chargers' gambit suggestion also. Risking a 10 point piece to score 10 points is not a gambit.


FlyingArrow wrote:
Another option on gambit... gambit scores aren't added in until time expires. Then a game doesn't end on gambit right before the other squad was going to kill your last piece.

"Hm. All I have left is Droopy and 3 Mouse Droids, but with my 7 rounds of gambit I win. Too bad for that Darth Revan you have standing right next to Droopy."


Gambit is a necessary evil in our game, but for some players it has become the main goal and avenue for winning.

In my opinion, it should encourage engagement, but it has been abused to the point where games are finishing, without really finishing.

Games that could clearly still go either way, both squads with 6-7 rounds of gambit each, but the game is called "finished" with plenty of time left on the clock. That makes no sense.

Games where one player locks the other player out of gambit.

Games where one player sets up a death trap in gambit but doesn't actually engage.

Games where a player has clearly lost, but the game ends with time still remaining.



SWM from it's inception has been intended for one squad to entirely annihilate the other squad. Keeping time at all became a necessary evil for tournaments. Then gambit did as well. Then 3-2 scoring. Then higher 10pt gambit and 1 point losses. All while the game was evolving to intrinsically encourage more action. Yet gambit was ending games that should not be over, leaving action unfinished.


Ideas have been floated from the other thread.

-5pt gambit but needing a 10+ piece to score it.

-Gambit only gets added after the game is over.

-No 3pt win if you don't finish off the other squad.


Let this thread be to discuss these ideas (or any others) and voice any concerns
UrbanShmi
Posted: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:34:18 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,318
I like the idea of gambit as a "tiebreaker" (essentially TJ's suggestion). Have both players keep track as normal, but it only gets added if the game doesn't finish in time.

ETA The main concern, as I see it, is concessions. Should a player be "penalized" by "losing" the gambit they've earned if their opponent concedes before time is up? Especially if we add more point options for wins, that could make some difference in outcomes and be open to abuse.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:49:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
UrbanShmi wrote:
The main concern, as I see it, is concessions. Should a player be "penalized" by "losing" the gambit they've earned if their opponent concedes before time is up? Especially if we add more point options for wins, that could make some difference in outcomes and be open to abuse.


The answer to that is already in place

Concessions officially have to get a judges ruling if they are over the 30 min mark.

In other words, under 30 min = Max points for winner automatically

over 30 min into a match - TO or judge has to make a ruling.


If there is 2 minutes to go and both players have 70+ points of legit attacker characters on the board, judge probably won't award full points.

20 minutes to go and the player who conceded only has Lobot, 3 uggies, 2 mouse droids and a camassi noble left - then almost certainly the judge awards max points.

Gambit can currently and always can figure into a judges decision
TimmerB123
Posted: Thursday, May 14, 2020 4:19:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Great conversation with Bryan that I think bore some good fruit.

He brought up valid points about the positive benefits of 10pt gambit. It really got me thinking -

Is 10 pt gambit really the issue? It wouldn't be if it didn't artificially end games early.


Chargers said it really well.

Chargers wrote:
kill points are the basis of the game.


Our game has steadily drifted away from this, and it has saddened me for years. Well meaning changes in tournament scoring and gambit have propelled it. Now we certainly don't want to go back to 15-18 score games ("the dark times"), but I think virtually all of us want games to finish. Really finish.


Why do games end before a team is entirely defeated or the time is up? It's like people don't like playing minis, lol.




So what the real culprit isn't 10pt gambit (at least not alone) - it's the idea of a game being finished before one team is entirely defeated.

Games SHOULD NOT END WHEN A PLAYER REACHES 200.

They should end either when:

-1 player has defeated all the other players pieces that are worth points (reinforcements don't count just like always)

or

-The round ends that the players were on when time is up.



This essentially is TJ's suggestion of adding gambit at the end of the game. In the end they are exactly the same. For some reason that wording description was confusing to some people though, and brought forward inaccurate impressions of what it means.

Scoring 200 does not end the game seems to be more clear.



So - regardless of if (or what) changes occur with our tournament scoring system, this change seems like a no-brainer.

Do we want games to actually finish? Yes. OK - this is the solution.


Thank you Chargers for the topic, thank you TJ for pinpointing the real issue, and thanks Bryan for the super cool convo between 2 dudes trying to keep the game they love going in a good direction!
Chargers
Posted: Friday, May 15, 2020 4:48:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
Doesn't 'add gambit at the end of the game' end up with the same problem? The person who controls the center of the map and earns gambit wins. If I'm in the center squares and you're just two squares out, we're still battling. But because I'm in the center I win? That's not right.

Some of the best battles aren't in the center. Controlling the center isn't the point of the game. Engagement is. Sometimes that's from a distance. Sometimes it's from an end-around or flanking maneuver. But you don't get points for engaging those ways. Just the center. And that's boring. Why don't we just use 10x10 maps, then?

How about you lose 10 points each round where you don't engage the enemy -- attack, make them make a save, etc? If my squad takes three turns to develop and get into place and you can do it in two, fine.

Or maybe you score gambit only in the turns when there is no engagement by either side. If the opponent is turtling, fine, score gambit points. But when engaging, then it's kill points that count.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Chargers wrote:
Doesn't 'add gambit at the end of the game' end up with the same problem? The person who controls the center of the map and earns gambit wins. If I'm in the center squares and you're just two squares out, we're still battling. But because I'm in the center I win? That's not right.

Some of the best battles aren't in the center. Controlling the center isn't the point of the game. Engagement is. Sometimes that's from a distance. Sometimes it's from an end-around or flanking maneuver. But you don't get points for engaging those ways. Just the center. And that's boring. Why don't we just use 10x10 maps, then?

How about you lose 10 points each round where you don't engage the enemy -- attack, make them make a save, etc? If my squad takes three turns to develop and get into place and you can do it in two, fine.

Or maybe you score gambit only in the turns when there is no engagement by either side. If the opponent is turtling, fine, score gambit points. But when engaging, then it's kill points that count.


You have some valid points.

When you say “end up with the same problem” - we might be talking about different problems.

The problem I find most egregious is games ending before time is up, yet both players still have pieces worth points on the board. To me - this game is not finished.

Games not ending at 200 (which in essence the same as adding gambit at the end) solves this problem.

Keep in mind - score only matters if both players have pieces worth points still on the board. If you defeat every one of your opponents pieces that are worth points, you win. Period. No matter what.

Then gambit only becomes a factor in games that don’t finish.


So simply getting a bunch of gambit doesn’t win you the game unless you can also survive the full time limit. But couple that with my other suggestions in the tournament scoring thread, and the motivation becomes kill all the opponents pieces in every game, not just get to 200 as quickly as possible.
Chargers
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:48:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
TimmerB123 wrote:
You have some valid points.

When you say “end up with the same problem” - we might be talking about different problems.

The problem I find most egregious is games ending before time is up, yet both players still have pieces worth points on the board. To me - this game is not finished.

Games not ending at 200 (which in essence the same as adding gambit at the end) solves this problem.

Keep in mind - score only matters if both players have pieces worth points still on the board. If you defeat every one of your opponents pieces that are worth points, you win. Period. No matter what.

Then gambit only becomes a factor in games that don’t finish.


So simply getting a bunch of gambit doesn’t win you the game unless you can also survive the full time limit. But couple that with my other suggestions in the tournament scoring thread, and the motivation becomes kill all the opponents pieces in every game, not just get to 200 as quickly as possible.



Yep, I get it that if you kill all your opponent's figures, you win. That's good.

But for the 50% of games that go to time, we're back at 'I got gambit so I win.' The first one to the center then forces the other to battle in the center because they will be behind on points. And that's not kill points. It's inflated points that incentivize controlling the center. It doesn't necessarily incentivize engagement.

I'm biased because I tried thinking of some other options that may encourage more play styles and/or squad builds.

But I'd be good with:
Games not ending at 200.
10 point figure to earn 5 points gambit.

And I'll let you guys figure out the point system. I read those and agree with many of the points.
gholli69
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 8:36:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/12/2012
Posts: 452
Location: Kokomo, IN
I feel like adding gambit at the end of the game may be the way to go with this. I don't however feel like 5 point gambit should make a comeback, especially if you need a 10 point piece to score it. I feel like gambit would be ignored for the most point with that system as most players are not going to offer their opponent the opportunity to score 10 kill points for a 5 point gambit that may or may not even help you when it gets added at the end of game. I feel like that situation would be almost the same as not having a gambit zone to drive engagement. I know most of the games I play don't usually go over 45 minutes before 1 squad is defeated to the point where a game could be called for concession by a TO easily so in my mind the system of adding gambit at the end seems like a good place to start investigating/ looking at data if we want to make a change.
UrbanShmi
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 8:46:53 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,318
Forgive me, are we talking about adding gambit only after the game is over, or only IF the game goes to time? If the latter, there's another problem, which is that a losing player who was doing their best to engage by having pieces in gambit may not be awarded their point, because they may not be able to score 100 points of kill points only. I know there's some controversy over whether a losing player should get anything, and I'll save that for that thread, but in our current system, it seems like you're almost incentivizing the losing player to pull back if they know they're losing and the game won't go to time, because they won't get a point anyway. So adding gambit only after the game has been "called," either through a concession or because a squad has been totally destroyed, seems like it might be a more fair way to go.
UrbanShmi
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:03:57 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,318
I feel like this question (and to some extent the 1-point loss question) comes down to what kind of games we want to play and encourage as a community. We all can remember being locked out by someone that just waited until time was almost up, ducked out, sniped one piece, and claimed victory. Gambit is a way to negate that strategy. It's a way of changing the culture around games. Personally, I much prefer a game where both players are actively engaged (mentally, not just physical engagement) and feel like they have a chance of winning up until the last round. I don't really want to demolish my opponent--I actually feel a bit bad about it. While I know that's my personal issue, I think it's useful context. 10-point gambit encourages people to put their pieces at risk. No, not all engagement happens in the center. However, in my experience, most does, and the games where it hasn't happened that way, it's been because one player stuck their neck out and brought the fight to the other. Usually in those games neither side gets significant gambit, because they're too busy duking it out. Those can absolutely be fun games, so I'm not disputing that good games can happen without gambit.

What I am disputing is the idea that there's something inherently unfair about giving an advantage to a player who actively designs a squad to be able to risk a piece in the first round. Now, there are some squads where it's not a big risk, because of protected gambit on the map you're on, or because your opponent doesn't see the gambit-getting piece as worth their time to kill (see Droopy McCool on Gangster's Vault). But to some extent, that decision is the opponent's problem. If they don't feel like they can spare a 30-point piece (just an example) to keep me from scoring maybe as much as 40 or 50 points, that's their decision. And the majority of games just don't go down like that. More often, someone gets to gambit first because of superior speed or positioning (again, this can be a map issue). I feel like one of the objectives of the game is to try to force your opponent to play a game that they don't really want to play, either because of positioning, strategy, or actual negation of their abilities. Those are the most fun games to me, because they force me to think outside of the box of what my squad does. Gambit is part of that.

I do see the problem with pieces that can start the game in gambit and then just sit there, not actively doing anything, for four or five rounds while the action goes on around them. I feel like there is a solution to that, but I'm not sure that changing the gambit rules in the ways that have been discussed really addresses that particular issue. Maybe make it so pieces with Emplacement or Forward Positioning cannot score gambit. I don't particularly like that idea, as the pieces have been designed with gambit in mind, and some of those pieces are more "active" than others. I'm willing to try the idea of adding in gambit after the game ends, so that that in and of itself doesn't end the game. I just don't know if that is the actual problem we're trying to solve, or if it will encourage the kind of games we want to play.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:57:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
UrbanShmi wrote:
Forgive me, are we talking about adding gambit only after the game is over, or only IF the game goes to time? If the latter, there's another problem, which is that a losing player who was doing their best to engage by having pieces in gambit may not be awarded their point, because they may not be able to score 100 points of kill points only. I know there's some controversy over whether a losing player should get anything, and I'll save that for that thread, but in our current system, it seems like you're almost incentivizing the losing player to pull back if they know they're losing and the game won't go to time, because they won't get a point anyway. So adding gambit only after the game has been "called," either through a concession or because a squad has been totally destroyed, seems like it might be a more fair way to go.


That’s a very good point Laura. It’s the same either way for the winning player (which is what I was focusing on), but not the losing player. Perhaps that is why “games don’t finish at 200” has resonated with more people.

Currently - game ends for one of 3 reasons (outside of concession)

1. 1 team has no pieces worth points left on the board

2. The round ends in which time was called

3. One player reaches 200 victory points


1 is what the game is. 2 is a necessary evil. 3 is unnecessary, and actually ends games before they are really over, superseding #1. We need to eliminate number 3.

You can add your gambit points to both sides as always, but don’t stop just because someone hits 200pts. Stop when one team has no pieces worth points left, or at the end of the round when time is called.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:09:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
I too want engagement. I don’t know how encouraging “kill ‘em” all is anything other than that. It’s the epitome of that.

I’ve just as often (if not more so) seen players move their last piece into gambit at the end of the round when their opponent has no more activations. Then they can pull back out and put a different piece in at the end of the next round. Literally risking nothing.

It’s a false narrative that getting gambit = engagement. I do think it’s necessary, but it gets abused (thus the title of the thread).

I’ve also seen players lock themselves into gambit (and not engage).

Button line - there is no question when one team is entirely defeated, who won. The issue arises when pieces are left alive on both teams. Time limit is an unfortunate necessity. However - games ending before time while both teams have pieces worth points left, is literally against the point of the game.

I am adamant that gambit should not finish games early.

I see very valid points on both sides as far as 10pt gambit, so while personally I’d prefer 5pt gambit, I’m willing to let that go since there is strong resistance.

However - I have yet to see anyone make a solid point on the side of gambit ending games before they are done being a good thing.
CorellianComedian
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:22:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/30/2014
Posts: 1,048
Start off with a side note:
UrbanShmi wrote:
I don't really want to demolish my opponent--I actually feel a bit bad about it.

This is a fantastic point. Finishing a game is fun when it comes down to a half-dead Admiral Yularen facing down a vanilla Stormtrooper and Admiral Ozzel. It is not fun when you've got Bossk, Boba Fett, and Embo chasing down The Disciple.
Quote:
What I am disputing is the idea that there's something inherently unfair about giving an advantage to a player who actively designs a squad to be able to risk a piece in the first round.

This is good to keep in mind as well.

So, main post is just food for thought:

The center of the map often (but not always) appears to be a significant location given the circumstances - a command deck, a communications relay, a control room, a mystical cave, etc. Maybe we need to ask ourselves what, if anything, does gambit mean thematically? And what does winning a game mean?

Think of the Battle of Hoth: that's clearly a curb-stomp winner-take-all fight. The Empire is there to exterminate the Rebel Alliance's presence. If they fight for a bit and then leave, they've failed. The Rebels still have a base there. Likewise, if the Rebels don't completely destroy the Imperial forces, then they're in danger of future strikes and may as well have been nuked into oblivion the first time. This situation translates well into fight-to-the-last-man Minis games. As far as Hoth goes, gambit is irrelevant. The planet is the gambit zone. There's no special closet in the Hoth base that is vital to either side; there is only who is left standing, and who is dead.

But now think about Rishi station in the Clone Wars (with the rookie clone troopers). Here, there's a specific location vital to the Republic's success: the communications room. From the outset, this is not a fight for control of the base, this is the rookies trying to warn the Republic of impending assault, and the Separatists trying to keep the Republic from finding out the base has been captured. As far as a "fight to the death" game goes, the troopers have essentially lost: there is no chance of them retaking the facility. However, if they can get to the comms room and either shut it down or blow it up - aka camp in gambit for long enough - they "win." They lose the base, but overall, they've won. This is a situation where it is thematically appropriate for one player to win by gambit, even if they would have been stomped into the floor in the next turn or so.

Summary: Again, I'm not a competitive player, with no personal stakes in this at all. I will continue playing whether gambit is 10, 5, 0, or 50 points. As someone who has definitely abused gambit to win a game I was very clearly losing, I can say it doesn't feel like a satisfying win. However, there are times where it makes thematic sense to me to "win" with gambit even though you had lost the fight.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:57:52 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
CorellianComedian wrote:
As someone who has definitely abused gambit to win a game I was very clearly losing, I can say it doesn't feel like a satisfying win. However, there are times where it makes thematic sense to me to "win" with gambit even though you had lost the fight.


I think these are valid points, but it needs to be broken into 2 categories:

-Scenario play -
CorellianComedian wrote:
there are times where it makes thematic sense to me to "win" with gambit even though you had lost the fight.



-Competitive skirmish play -
CorellianComedian wrote:
As someone who has definitely abused gambit to win a game I was very clearly losing, I can say it doesn't feel like a satisfying win.



With scenario play - I absolutely think there are other factors that can and should factor in.

However, with competitive skirmish play - I think the game at it's core is pretty clear - last team left standing wins.

This is directly from the rulebook:


Doesn't get more clear than that. We have gravitated away from that. We need to get back there.

I too find it very unsatisfying if I "win" but don't kill the opponents full squad. Especially if there is time left. To me, the game is not over. I want to finish the game.

So much emphasis has been put on "finishing games" over the years (and rightfully so), that it's pretty ironic that a system came about to artificially stop games before they are truly finished.

So let's simply correct that long overlooked error, and allow games (not gone to time) to FINISH. ThumbsUp
thereisnotry
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 12:36:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
I think Laura's comments are valuable to consider. "What kind of game do we want to play?" Obviously, one where there's full engagement.

Therefore, my first question in that regard is this: Isn't that already happening? Has any of us experienced an opponent slow-playing us recently? Has anyone experienced the situation where your opponent snipes a piece or two and locks the doors to wait out gambit? Personally, I haven't. It seems that Jason and I end up being paired together at least once in every tournament recently, and our games never take more than 30 minutes. Ever! It's hilarious! Nevertheless, I haven't heard of slow-play/stalling/lockout-wins happening even once, not after that time in 2012 when Bill (with R2 and Panaka left) locked Weeks (using Revan SL) out of Gambit in the semifinals at GenCon. That was 8 years ago, and I don't recall it happening since then, at least not that I've heard of.

Therefore, if it's true that people are fully engaging in the game and in combat, then why bother reconsidering how Gambit works? If it ain't broke, then don't call the repairman.


Second, I think we need some clarity about how wins will be counted and scored. I know that this ties in with another thread, but this discussion impacts it. Basically, I need to know whether it will count as a full win if I manage to kill all of my opponent's attackers, but at the end of time his Yammosk is sitting in a (locked?) back room. When the timer runs out, if I have reached 200pts due to kills and gambit, then that should count as a full win, regardless of who is hiding in the back. If that somehow counts for anything less than a full win, then I think there's a problem. What are Mas and Piett, or a Yammosk, going to do against my 50hp Mace Critdu? Do I really need to take 2-3 rounds to run my guys to the other side of the board to clean up the last of my opponent's pieces, just so that it can be considered a full win? Or what if my opponent just leaves a solo Uggie alone in the back room, behind 3 doors? Chasing down that piece is no fun--neither for the winner nor the loser.

I think I've made myself clear. I'll need an answer to this question before going any further in considering a revision to Gambit scoring.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 12:43:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
thereisnotry wrote:
I think Laura's comments are valuable to consider. "What kind of game do we want to play?" Obviously, one where there's full engagement.

Therefore, my first question in that regard is this: Isn't that already happening? Has any of us experienced an opponent slow-playing us recently? Has anyone experienced the situation where your opponent snipes a piece or two and locks the doors to wait out gambit? Personally, I haven't. It seems that Jason and I end up being paired together at least once in every tournament recently, and our games never take more than 30 minutes. Ever! It's hilarious! Nevertheless, I haven't heard of slow-play/stalling/lockout-wins happening even once, not after that time in 2012 when Bill (with R2 and Panaka left) locked Weeks (using Revan SL) out of Gambit in the semifinals at GenCon. That was 8 years ago, and I don't recall it happening since then, at least not that I've heard of.

Therefore, if it's true that people are fully engaging in the game and in combat, then why bother reconsidering how Gambit works? If it ain't broke, then don't call the repairman.


Second, I think we need some clarity about how wins will be counted and scored. I know that this ties in with another thread, but this discussion impacts it. Basically, I need to know whether it will count as a full win if I manage to kill all of my opponent's attackers, but at the end of time his Yammosk is sitting in a (locked?) back room. When the timer runs out, if I have reached 200pts due to kills and gambit, then that should count as a full win, regardless of who is hiding in the back. If that somehow counts for anything less than a full win, then I think there's a problem. What are Mas and Piett, or a Yammosk, going to do against my 50hp Mace Critdu? Do I really need to take 2-3 rounds to run my guys to the other side of the board to clean up the last of my opponent's pieces, just so that it can be considered a full win? Or what if my opponent just leaves a solo Uggie alone in the back room, behind 3 doors? Chasing down that piece is no fun--neither for the winner nor the loser.

I think I've made myself clear. I'll need an answer to this question before going any further in considering a revision to Gambit scoring.


You brought up one example of abuse, but there are several others (as noted in the thread). This isn’t just about lockouts. That doesn’t happen very often anymore (but not never), but other abuses happen FREQUENTLY. Games are stopped before time with both players having pieces worth points left on the board. That should not happen. We need to end that.

So in short - it is broken, and has been for quite some time. It’s been overlooked for far too long. We need to fix it.

To answer your other question, at this point it looks like if time is called and you have over 200pts (and more points than your opponent), you get full tournament victory points (currently 3). While other things were discussed, I don’t see that changing.
UrbanShmi
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 4:05:42 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,318
TimmerB123 wrote:


You brought up one example of abuse, but there are several others (as noted in the thread). This isn’t just about lockouts. That doesn’t happen very often anymore (but not never), but other abuses happen FREQUENTLY. Games are stopped before time with both players having pieces worth points left on the board. That should not happen. We need to end that.



To be clear, what you're describing here is not abusive. No one is abusing or exploiting a rule to get to a particular outcome. The players in that scenario are playing the game AS IT IS CURRENTLY PLAYED. You quoted from the Rebel Storm rulebook, saying that the game objective is to defeat all of your opponent's pieces. That was true, that was the only objective at the inception of the game. But the game has evolved, especially the competitive game. This game was meant to be a casual skirmish game, and WOTC did not anticipate the degree of competition that we have developed over time. Instead of looking at what WOTC intended only, it seems like we should take a balanced approach, asking what the competitive game needs, and leaning heavily on the Floor Rules. Which say:

Quote:
Victory Condition:Victory is achieved if one player eliminates his opponent's entire squad (including Reinforcements) at the end of a round while having at least one piece of his own remaining. If this has not occurred at the end of a round, if at least one player has scored points equal to or in excess of the format point limit (100, 150 or 200 points), the player with the most victory points wins.


Now, the floor rules can certainly be subject to change, which I guess is what we're discussing here. But I have yet to see evidence that there are FREQUENT problems with actual abuse (lockins or the running in and out of gambit described), rather than people simply playing to the victory conditions. I don't recall having experienced either of those things, or certainly not in a long time.

So if the only abuse people see is simply that games "end early," I simply don't agree with that definition.
Chargers
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 4:45:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
UrbanShmi wrote:
No one is abusing or exploiting a rule to get to a particular outcome. The players in that scenario are playing the game AS IT IS CURRENTLY PLAYED.


To me, those statements are contradictory. Yes, players are following the rules and following them in their pursuit of a win. Nothing wrong with that. Except that the rules as is allow players to win by controlling the center of the board and forcing the other playing to come into the kill zone to TRY to catch-up. That shouldn't be the only strategy. But it has certainly become the most common.


UrbanShmi wrote:
So if the only abuse people see is simply that games "end early," I simply don't agree with that definition.


The rules as is do promote engagement. But not necessarily all kinds of engagement.
FlyingArrow
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:29:35 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,407
My Caedus squads frequently use a round or 2 of charging up Force points. (Or at least they did before the Nexus - might never need to do that again. I haven't played with the Nexus yet.) That hands the opponent 10 or 20 points of gambit, which is part of the price of playing the squad. After 3 or 4 rounds of engagement and the opponent has 50 or 60 gambit points (though only 10 or 20 more than me). Even if I'm "winning" because I'm beating the enemy squad, I'm frequently behind on points. I don't remember if I ever lost a game on points with plenty of time left when I felt like I would have won if we kept playing until time was up, but I have often been thinking about the possibility.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:03:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Yes, “abuse” is subjective. Yes our game has evolved (that was not a quote from the Rebel storm rulebook btw, it was from the final rulebook printed by WotC).

It really all comes down to this:

Do you want games to be stopped before time is up, even if both players have pieces worth points still left on the board.

My answer to that is a resounding and whole hearted “NO”

It seems that most others agree.


Tell me if this sounds fair:

Here’s a game where both squads are fully engaged and go straight to fighting, playing at a quick pace. Here’s where we are at the end of round 8, with 15 minutes left on the clock.

Player A has only 100pt Luke Skywalker on the board with 10hp left, and has earned 6 rounds of gambit.

Player B has full health Dash Rendar RS (28 points) and full health Ayala Secura Jedi Knight (29 pts) left and has earned 8 rounds of gambit.

Score: player A 203, player B 180.

Currently this would end the game 15 minutes early, with both players having pieces worth points left on the board.

Yet player B scored more gambit. Player B has the clear advantage. There is time left on the clock.

Why are we stopping the game here?


This is something that happens. That fact that it’s even possible needs to be nixed, much less that similar scenarios have been occurring for years.

I don’t really understand the argument for not finishing the game when there is time left.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Bloo Milk Theme Created by shinja
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.