|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Just thought I'd float another idea out there. What if we just didn't count gambit during round 1? You only earn gambit starting from round 2 onward.
This wouldn't address Tim's concerns, but it would basically be a middle ground between 5pt gambit and 10pt gambit. A bit less likely that the game ends before the combat has really reached a resolution.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
|
FlyingArrow wrote:If engagement isn't happening, it's because both sides aren't engaging.
"I'm here - come into my death box!"
"No - come into MY death box."
Gambit is just a way to say who has to go into whose death box. If you're losing and they are in gambit, it's your job to go where they are. I have no problem saying that if your opponent gets to gambit first they can sit there and just be ready for you when you get there. That's as engaged as they need to be.
But once you get there, if you can kill them within the time limit you should be able to do so. Yes, gambit currently defines who goes into whose death box. But is that the game we want? We want engagement. We could get that by rewarding points for actual engagement (ie - making an attack or making the opponent make a save roll) rather than rewarding camping in the center. I would like more variety to games than Tile Wars on big maps. urbanjedi wrote:We talk about wanting a fair game. Not sure what is more fair than each squad trying to reach 200 victory points (through killing opposing pieces or scoring gambit)? Each player knows exactly what they have to do. This has been the same for as long as I have been playing Star Wars Miniatures (2006 or 2007) as I did not play before there was organized play and gambit. No one said it wasn't fair. It is fair. All of us play by the same rules. And players have been winning/losing knowing the rules. No problem with that. Changing the rules doesn't change the fairness. But maybe it makes a better game. UrbanShmi wrote:a whole lot of valid stuff Laura voiced concerns that any proposed changes would make a better game. That good. Let's consider those thoughts. Let's discuss them. Both sides of questions being asked. With an open mind. None of us want to willy-nilly make changes and in a month say 'oops, my bad.' But we shouldn't take the other approach of 'let's never change anything, ever.' That thought would have prevented gambit from being a thing. I think everyone agrees it should be a thing. The question is how big of a thing.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
|
A quick thought about engagement.
Axis and Allies Minis and some other minis games use three objective tokens. One in the center, one between the center and player A, and one between the center and player B. The goal is to control two of the three. Wow. That promotes engagement. All over the map. In a good way. You've got fast units? Great. Use them. You've got aggressive units? Great. Use them. You've got more defensive units? Great. Use them. You get engagement everywhere; not just a small zone in the center of the map.
Wild thought ... what if SWM tried that?
If we want engagement, this may promote it more than gambit does.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 955
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
|
I, for one, support not changing anything. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't think the scenarios proposed are really unfair- gambit is one of the tactical dimensions of our game and you need to think about it if you want to win. I'm cool with the objective of the game as reaching 200 rather than killing all enemies.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2014
Posts: 345
Location: Wisconsin
|
I've been reading all these different threads as they've developed, and I agree with a lot of the different points of view on both sides of the gambit/scoring/engagement topic.
On one hand, it is really frustrating to play against a squad that only "works" because it reliably gets into gambit first or controls gambit. They don't even necessarily "turtle" or not engage, but they just generate points every round for essentially free while making it difficult for you to do the same. Vader of Lothal is one that stands out to me. Can't shoot him, and you need to get in gambit, but he and all his friends have basically been in gambit since before the first round. I also play a fair amount of Ommin and I know how tough he can be, and he does actually get to start in gambit. Got to play against Randy's Dark Force Nexus triumvirate squad in the spring thaw regional, and that one also relied on being able to have one of the big Sith start with control of gambit. Potty Palps is also a classic, even if we don't see him as much anymore.
None of these squads seem broken or overpowered in any way. Vader comes with a restrictive Rival ability, Ommin and Palps are emplacements and you can turn that against them on most maps, and while the Nexus is very good, it's really only as good as the Sith you summon. It also is very force-reliant, which I think we have a healthy amount of counters to at this point.
I agree a lot with the points that Laura made about being worried that any changes to the game at this point could possibly do more harm than good, or at the very least have unintended consequences. We do seem to have a pretty good balance at this point, with a lot of different squads and archetypes that are competitive or at least see play. Could it be better? Of course it could be. It would be super cool if every game was played to completion when one squad was fully destroyed and we didn't need gambit.
Problem is, I think it's likely that any sort of change we make will still have some sort of loophole that someone could exploit if they really wanted to, or an edge case where not engaging is the better play for points. Plus, it is possible that changes could alter the balance of some pieces, since they have been designed with the current scoring system in mind (don't know of any, just tossing that out there).
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Completely unrelated, but can we please have some controversial proposed changes at least every 3 months? These discussions are great, regardless of the outcome. I just like talking about minis, and these sorts of discussions generate more... discussion. :)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,783
Location: Canada
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Completely unrelated, but can we please have some controversial proposed changes at least every 3 months? These discussions are great, regardless of the outcome. I just like talking about minis, and these sorts of discussions generate more... discussion. :) Sweet! I've got the next one! Here's my proposal: At least every 30 days, all SWM players must converge on thereisnotry's house for a weekend of non-stop SWM madness. It'll be like FrostyCon, but it'll actually be frosty, since it'll be in CANADA!!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Just thought I'd float another idea out there. What if we just didn't count gambit during round 1? You only earn gambit starting from round 2 onward.
This wouldn't address Tim's concerns, but it would basically be a middle ground between 5pt gambit and 10pt gambit. A bit less likely that the game ends before the combat has really reached a resolution. I actually really like this. It has validity in and of itself, and can be combined with any other idea. Literally every squad can make it to gambit in round 2 on any map. Not the case in round 1. That brings up a point that I don't think has been brought up - Many players have a distaste for high activation squads. I certainly think the average number of activations has gone down, but I think less emphasis on gambit will encourage that trend. Racing to gambit is a strategy players currently employ. You can do it without risk if you out-activate. Slip in after the other player is done, and if you don't like what you see, slip out and come back in when the other player is all done. That's not engagement. But it does happen. and it gets rewarded handsomely. If we nix 1st round gambit, and then combine with 5pt gambit if both players are present - I think we have a really good "happy medium" The reason I am emphasizing the idea of no 1st round gambit along side the 5pt gambit only if both players have a qualifying piece in gambit - is that racing to gambit 1st round could become MORE important, and we don't want that. But as I said - any squad can get there round 2, so let it start there.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/26/2008
Posts: 602
Location: Kokomo, IN
|
I honestly think it's funny that a game that has been around for so long is under scrutiny for scoring when undoubtedly, slow play and ridiculous tempo based gigantic activation squads have always been a larger problem (until recently when people have been playing smaller squads by design.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
AceAce wrote:I honestly think it's funny that a game that has been around for so long is under scrutiny for scoring when undoubtedly, slow play and ridiculous tempo based gigantic activation squads have always been a larger problem (until recently when people have been playing smaller squads by design.) I hear what you're saying, and agree. That specific aspect has gotten better, and I think most people don't want to go back to the 25 activations as the norm days, nor the snipe one character then lock the door and hide days. However, this issue is that in doing positive changes to combat those things, other unintended consequences happened. In trying to promote more engagement, a loophole opened up to allow games to end before engagement was finished. My desire is to retain the positive progress we've made, and close that loophole. Just because we made a change many years ago and have been living with it - doesn't mean it was perfect. Nor does it mean it was bad. We now have AMPLE information from years of this system, and many players are speaking out that this specific loophole has bothered us for awhile. So what we want is to all put our heads together to see if it can be improved (close the loophole) and at the same time not effect the positive progress we've made in related issues. I think it's entirely possible. One thing I think that is really holding us back from this is that a lot of players have a very visceral negative connection to the years when sniping a piece and locking the door or 25 activations as the norm were so prevalent. Rightfully so! I understand that! I don't want that back either! But I have seen and heard a lot of "I don't want to go back there!" knee jerk reactions, that aren't founded in reality, and regardless - the proposed changes wouldn't send us there anyway. They are about similar topics, so people connect them understandably. But they are not the same. We are not trying to UNDO any of the positive progress. We want to keep all that good stuff. The thing is - the changes we are proposing won't, if we are thoughtful about them. The other issue is people refusing to see the problem. "I don't see the problem" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Having this many people talking about it proves that everything is not copasetic. It may not be a problem for YOU (anyone in particular), but it is for others, and that should be considered. We have seen in the past how fractures in our community have damaged it. We have lost large parts of the community when we drug our feet on acting for too long. Daala (for example) killed a large segment of our community, and I think the fact that we didn't listen close enough and take action quick enough made it worse. Now we can't jump at every single thing that pops up obviously. We all have different opinions, and they literally can not all coincide at once. So we have to find a balance of listening to what people are upset over, and having thoughtful responses regardless of what actions end up happening. I fully admit I have not done well at that in many instances. I am trying to be better. There have been so many ideas thrown out recently, in several different threads. Many different viewpoints, and lots of brainstorming. I am repeatedly seeing people getting hung up on one item they feel passionately about, and thereby dismissing everything. But underneath it all - I see some throughlines that most everyone agrees on. I think ultimately we agree on more than we disagree on, several of us (myself fully included) are just very passionate about some of the finer details. I think virtually everyone agrees: -That SWM is awesome! -That we've made legitimate friends in this community over the years -That overall it's a fun healthy activity -That a lot of us get really passionate about things within the SWM world -That most of us prefer to have games with a lot of action and engagement That last one, that I think virtually all of us agree on, is the spirit in which this is all based for me. Some of us have different ideas on how to define that, and that's ok. But if we keep in mind that base goal, I think we can find common ground. We've made a lot of positive progress over the years, but that was do to conscious changes. Our game isn't perfect, and it never will be. But I think a minor change here can greatly relieve those that really hate a certain loophole in our game, while changing virtually nothing for the people who don't find it to be a problem. And if that's the case, why wouldn't we do it?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
Since it's directly relevant here - I am posting this from the data thread about the Squadbuilding Depth Tournament
We used one and only change from our current game in terms of tournament score, gambit, when games end, etc.
We used the rule that this thread is promoting. gambit was still 10pts, we used 3-2-1 tournament scoring, etc.
As far as the one change in we played with - having games not end at 200 if there is time left and both players feel they have a chance to win - there were few games where it made any difference, but I know of at least 2 where it did happen.
1 the player not at 200 conceded since he only had a few scrubs left.
The other - was EPIC
It was an absolute slugfest. Final Score 336 - 231
It was
--Yoda man!--
100 Yoda, Hero of Geonosis
26 Elite Republic Commando - Boss
23 Elite Republic Commando - Fixer
23 Elite Republic Commando - Scorch
10 Kaminoan Clone Technician
9 R2-D2, Astromech Droid
5 Spaarti Clone Trooper Demolitionist
4 Prowler 1000 Seeker Droid
(200pts. 8 activations)
VS
--Bad Maaan 2.2--
45 Dooku, Separatist Hero
28 Shada D'ukal
24 Young Han Solo
20 General Whorm Loathsom
51 IG-86 Assassin Droid x3
9 Battle Droid Officer
8 OOM Security Battle Droid
6 Mouse Droid x2
9 Ugnaught Demolitionist x3
(200pts. 14 activations)
It was played on Rebel Fortress (Modular Base)
Separatists started from the right and advanced toward the center room. The Republic used Boss and Scorch's Coordinated Movement on Fixer to get him up into gambit. Yoda gets towed by R2 to get in there too. Fixer tried to lock them out of gambit at the top of round 2, which proved foolish. There was an uglier in range to blow the door, and then the Separatists' IG-86s made short work of Fixer. That hurt the other commandos badly, losing med packs, override and the +4 synergy. Shada came in to bodyguard the droids, but Yoda with the Help of Boss and Scorch took them out, but not before Dooku came in swinging his greater mobile double twins, and Han firing from the back. Yoda was at about 1/2 health, then got towed by R2 to the Seps backfield and took out Whorm to try and give the Republic a chance. Republic Commandos were taking the heat on the other side from Han and Dooku. By the time Yoda gets back to gambit (he had R2 lock the door to protect him), Boss is gone and Scorch is hurt, Han is near Death but Dooku is untouched. Scorch goes down soon after that, and Yoda is able to take out Han. It's Yoda with 30hp and R2 vs Dooku full hp and most of his scrubs. Yoda gets lucky to win a few inits to be able to take out most of the scrubs and keep Dooku at bay (Yoda's force defense stopping Dooku's lightning). Yoda starts in on Dooku, and finally got the luck he needed rolling a 15 for init, getting 4 more spaarti's as reserves. (it had been 8 rounds, so it was overdue to happen). He's able to soak up Dooku's damage and put a good bit on him. Both had scored many gambit, but Separatists had scored 3 more. 4 of the Separatists gambits, they were the only ones in gambit. Republic only had 1st round gambit by themselves. However, since Yoda costs 100 pts and Dooku is only 45 - the score was lopsided in favor of Republic.
At this point - Republic passed 200 points. The game would have ended with Republic winning and 3-1 being the tournament score.
But - that game CERTAINLY wasn't over. It would have been EXTREMELY disappointing to BOTH players had it ended there.
Luckily, we made the rule change for this tournament, and it came up. It came up BIG TIME.
Actually getting to FINISH the game -
Yoda then gets lucky getting ANOTHER 15 for init, and piles in 4 more spaartis. Again able to stave off Dooku long enough to stay alive. Another round, some more dancing, and it's back down to Dooku vs Yoda - Yoda with 10hp left. Dooku finally gets the init he needs and time runs out - they must finish the round. Dooku doesn't have the FP to lightning, so he has no choice but to attack, hitting Yoda. Yoda LS defenses, misses. Rerolls with his last FP and misses!
Dooku wins! He pulled it off!
Here's the fun part friends - I made the rule change for this tournament.
It came to matter big time once.
That once ended up giving me a LOSS when I would have WON. I was running the Republic squad in. this match. Lol
But I don't regret it!
It was a roller coaster of a game, and was honestly one of the best, most exciting games I've ever played.
I can say absolutely and fully - EVEN AS THE LOSER IN THIS SITUATION, that this game should have played on.
This is how minis was meant to be played. That game was up in the air until the final roll, and would have been supremely disappointing to end before that.
I would have felt cheap if I had gotten the win. In the "race to 200", I didn't even win the gambit count. I just kept my 100hp character alive just long enough to hit 200 first, but not long enough to actually win.
(I also would have felt gross winning due to reserves. Ewww. I felt dirty even playing a piece with reserves where it's not just inicidental. I do like Yoda even without the reserves.)
Mike (AceAce) was my opponent in that match - he can give his point of view as well.
The whole tournament was worth it for me - just for that match!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/26/2008
Posts: 602
Location: Kokomo, IN
|
It was a whole lot of fun. Never scored over 300 let alone over 325 in a game ever. That said, it was with the longer time limit and took me killing a 100 point piece at the end. To boot, I had 110 points in gambit!
While in this instance it helped me to play to go past 200 points and indeed I won because we kept playing, I still prefer the 60 minute time limit and first to 200 counting gambit points as they are accumulated.
It was a whale of a game as Tim said and the outcome was uncertain until literally the very end of the game. Awesomeness!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
AceAce wrote:I still prefer the 60 minute time limit. Just so nobody is confused, we were playing the regular time limit that we’ve been using for most all vassal tournaments. The only change was not stopping at 200 before time expires.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
AceAce wrote:I still prefer . . . the first to 200 I must admit I was surprised by your response. I would respectfully ask if you could provide reasons that you prefer it. It feels like the fears some people expressed (players hiding their pieces, having to go hunt down a bunch of scrubs, etc) were entirely unfounded. Zero cases of anything like that happened. So what is the positive you see in stopping at 200 vs allowing games to finish fully? I really am open to listening.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
|
So ... did everyone hope the topic would go away? Have more tournaments tried this? What were the outcomes?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010
Posts: 1,291
|
Why not change the gambit zone?
Player A has to be in X position on player Bs side.
Player B has to be in Y position on player As side.
Engagement is encouraged. Your still rewarded for getting gambit, and if your opponent wants to stop you, they don't have to over commit.
Win, win, win.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
Chargers wrote:So ... did everyone hope the topic would go away? Have more tournaments tried this? What were the outcomes?
I think some people hoped it would go away. To my knowledge no other tournament has tried it. I ask what I feel like are valid questions and people avoid answering (see above question to AceAce). There is still only one person who has given an honest valid answer to why they think they don’t want it to change, and through personal conversation has admitted that it was a fear reaction. I had another game recently that I “won” (officially), but would have lost if it played out. It was awful. It really left a sour taste in my mouth. That’s not what I want the game to be. A bunch of half games. It’s too late to change anything for GenCon (which I think was the intent on a lot of the avoidance). I will very much press the issue afterward until there is resolution as opposed to just avoidance.
|
|
|
Guest |