On Sunday I brought and intentionally non-competitive (in the traditional sense) squad to show how players can work entirely within the rules and abuse the system.

I had no intent (or realistic capability) of destroying the other player's squads entirely.

I simply brought diplomats, pieces you can't kill to stand in the way so you can't attack the diplomats, and cloaked pieces behind that.

While I did not win the tournament, I did beat the player who eventually won it. (One player had perfect counter to my squad, and vs another player, one single misplacement on my part {even with the opponent having several counters} changed the trajectory of that game. In that game we actually went back and talked it through, and that could have been a win for my squad too had it not been for that misplacement on my part).

I certainly don't think this is a method that would win Gen Con per say (though it could with the right matchups), but it certainly can beat squads it has no business beating, simply by camping in gambit and sniping a few points without being able to be attacked.

This was just one iteration of a gambit abusing squad. As I played I realized how I could make the squad even more abusive.

I also am able to do this on any legal map. So it's not an issue of map at all.



Are there counters to this strategy? Of course. But less than you might think. I didn't simply make diplomat walls, I made solid blocks of characters in a corner of gambit lined with diplomats. So if played right, flight and acrobatic alone can't help (in fact tint's squad had multiple characters with flight). The question is not, can it be beat. The question is - do we want to restrict the meta down to every squad having to have counters to this? Or directly address these issues and get the game back to how it was meant to be played?

I think everyone agrees that they don't want to see this strategy employed. It is an awful NPE.

But if changes aren't made, it will happen again, and in a worse way.



I think we universally agree that we want "engagement" in the game. It is good for the game, more fun, less NPEs and really what the game is meant to be.

So what is "engagement"?

I still love the definition that Laura gave awhile back, and many others have agreed with it. (I may not have it verbatim, please correct me if this isn't accurate)

Both players actively trying to defeat the other players pieces.

Simple, straightforward, and well, correct.

Somehow, somewhere along the way, sitting in gambit became an acceptable form of "engagement". I've never agreed with this, but some players have hopped aboard this wagon.

So my intent was to take it to an extreme to prove that simply sitting in gambit, should not, in and of itself, be considered "engagement".


I sat in gambit, with no intent whatsoever to defeat all the other players pieces. Just to gain as much gambit as possible, and win only on that. And I did.


This is not what our game was ever meant to be, nor should it be.


Thus changes truly need to be made.



I have 2 major suggestions that will help immensely.



#1 - When both players have qualifying pieces in gambit, neither player receives gambit points.

Gambit's sole original purpose was to promote engagement. Force both players to bring pieces to the center or pay a price. It is still needed, and that is valid. I don't want to abolish gambit. Once both players are in gambit, the goal of gambit is achieved and thus it is necessary to award points to both players.


#2 - Pieces with no damage value (Keeper of the Whills, Force Ghost, Holocron, etc), do not qualify as characters in line of sight for purposes of Diplomat.

In other words, if you can only see diplomats and the Keeper of the Whills (for example), you can shoot the diplomats. It's really unfair to have an unkillable piece make other pieces unattackable.


Personally I think diplomats are bad for the game in general (why do we have pieces that prevent combat in a combat game!?!), as are pieces that can't be killed directly (Keeper of the Whills, etc). But the above proposals are the minimum I think need to happen.

(side note - designers - no more pieces like Keeper of the Whills. All pieces in this game need to be able to be killed directly somehow)



The latest (lack of rulings) with no change to gambit by the Balance Committee was, in my opinion, a mistake. From my understanding, it was due to some of the balance committee members not understanding that it really could be an issue. They had never seen it. Well now it has been shown in a tournament, beating a top tier (Regional winning) squad. I hope now it is clear that it can be, and in fact IS, a big issue, and that changes truly need to be made.

i'd have to think about the gambit scoring situation a bit more. I think that might need to be tested out a lot to implement it, because there have been a lot of close games and it might be a very different game if gambit wasn't applied to both people being there. i do like the idea of Diplomat being adjusted to allow opponents to target them when they also have LOS to things that can't be targeted like holocrons, Keeper of the Whills and Force spirits.

I already addressed this







Btw, on Sunday I did nothing for 5 rounds just to finish proving the point, but it could have been worse. I could have fired one shot every 5th round and kept the game going and got a 3pt win. There was literally no way to prevent it at that point.


That aside - I'm glad you are in for the change to Gambit. Trevor is one of the communities finest examples of a player who enjoys playing tank squads - but plays them aggressively, always intending to defeat the other players squad. He (by his own words), likes low activation beefy squads that kick butt (not quite verbatim but you get it). Not squads that sit in gambit and kill half a squad.

Ok sure, not really sure how that is related. Like I said, gambit is necessary in general, I never implied we need to get rid of it. Where it isn't necessary, is when it has already done its job and both squads have qualifying pieces in the center. The ONLY thing giving both squads gambit points in the same round does is end the game sooner. It literally does nothing else.



Yes, again not really sure what your point here is. It is similar to a lockout, but there are a plethora of door control options in the game. Far fewer reliable diplomat killing options, especially when you can stick an unkillable piece like Keeper of the Whills in the way and prevent all targeting and attacks.

I fully support both of the above changes they make sense. Also up here in my part of Canada we only end games at time or squad’s defeat. Gambit is just for determining points for tournament pairings if needed. Seems too much like capture the flag and less like a combat skirmish game.

Was that TJ’s point? It was really unclear. Killboxes have nothing to do with this discussion really, it’s a separate point.

To a certain extent I like these rule changes proposals. I've always thought the whole cloaked diplomat thing was pretty cheesy. Though I kind of disagree about the side point about not wanting more characters like keeper of the whills; it's basically a tack-on piece and I don't think it's that big of a deal that it can't be killed directly, especially at its point cost. I would agree that it would be more problematic if it was a different cost but as is I don't dislike pieces like that being added. I also don't like Diplomat in general; it forces some type of creativity in terms of approach and as it stands beyond the cheesy cloaked thing its not really competitive anyway. I like stuff like aggressive negotiations as well; there's plenty of fun stuff to be done there without changing every part of it

Over a month and not a word. I know the balance committee is in flux right now, but these issues are still in need of repair.

Last time I let the conversation die, and no action was taken. So I am going to make sure the conversation stays active.

The Vassal Online Championship is just a little over a month away.

Do we want to see unkillable diplomat walls? I don’t think anyone does

Let’s get this ruling ASAP so that isn’t a thing

July 22-25. Announced on SHNN last night, will be posted today