|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
This came out of a couple of past conversations, and one current squad comment discussion, so I thought since we hadn't discussed in a couple of years, it was worth another look. The question is thus: What does playing by DCI rules - particularly gambit - change in squad building? I'm open to discussing any other tournament rule affects as well here, but want to focus on gambit and what it does to changing your squads. I will post my own ideas later. Tell us what you all think, or what you personally change if anything about your squad builds. Perhaps also talk about squads that would be good without gambit that are not as good with the gambit rule. For reference, here it the squad that sparked the conversation http://www.bloomilk.com/Squad/Details/96044
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 114
Location: NE Indiana
|
I think gambit increases the value of the Diplomat SA. Sure, they are useful in SS squads and to nerf Palps on Throne, but they can have the power to force your opponent into disadvantageous situations due to their inability to be targeted.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2009
Posts: 230
Location: near Madison, WI
|
Door control, both override and satchel charge become crucial. In fun games, I typically ignore both abilities. In DCI games, they are the 2nd or 3rd decision to be made.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2009
Posts: 230
Location: near Madison, WI
|
Having "enough" pieces in the starting squad to contest the gambit points. I would expect >60%. The mentioned team has <50% (although its design may be to totally ignore gambit by excessive galloping). You can then move pieces into and out of gambit and still collect the points. Too few and you will be too predictable within gambit.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
I'd say the biggest change is that in a gambit game, a squad has to play much more offensively whereas in a non-gambit game, a player can take the time to set traps and ambushes to whittle down the opposition before making the killing blow.
I'd say a good comparison for gambit and non-gambit games would be King of the Hill and Deathmatch/Slayer modes in FPS games. While the core goal is the same, the tactics and strategies used for victory are somewhat different.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2008
Posts: 584
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
See, my opinion would be that the squad in question would actually be WORSE in a non-gambit environment, because there's no incentive for the opponent to engage. You just sit back and wait for the MTB to kill off the fodder pieces. Yobuck has a tough time as it is against some things like NR and Rebel Disruptive/Bodyguards. So, add in diminishing activations and the possibility of having to kill off your own pieces....yeah, I don't think I'd play the squad that way any given time.
Activations are definitely helpful in a gambit driven format. However, I have found that squad archetypes (Yobuck and Lancer as examples) in the most recent sets really pushed the game away from a dependence on gambit. I still think it's important for the competitive scene in order to encourage engagement. But once you also take the new 3/2/0 scoring into account, most people don't even bother with gambit too much, and just go for the kills, which is the way things should be.
Heck, playing Yobuck at Gencon this past year with Lobot in there, it was typically either Lobot, Panaka, R2, or Mas gaining gambit for me, all of which this guy has in his squad too. So, from that perspective he should be OK. It's the continual loss of activations, and the fact that there's no incentive for the opponent to attack (no MTB exit strategy) that would concern me the most. If Yobuck gets trapped in the back-field because of Disruptive, you're pretty well hosed.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2009
Posts: 1,195
|
See when i play i generally think about gambit as far as scoring last. I see people pull out there gambit dice or make a note on paper about who scored gambit and who didnt and that doesnt bother me. The only time i check the score is if im still playing and time has been called.
At my LGS this week my Fiance ended up losing a game by a guy not attacking all game then and sitting in gambit and once time was called killed her fodder and won. That is not how the game should be played. Gambit often gets roped into that kind of mentality.
Here's how you should look at it. Anything goes, play whatever you want and I'll play whatever i want. WE have an hour and we are going to track points, you get extra points for killing everything i have and vice versa for me. Gambit is just designed so the game gets played in an hour, its original purpose was to stop lockout teams from winning. Open a door kill an uggie, lock it and never open it and you win. That's no fun for anybody involved.
I'm not sure what kind of label you have on "gambit" games as you have called them but gambit to me just means an hour time limit where i try to beat your whole squad.
As far as your squad goes I'll say again to stick Lobot in there over your fodder. That way if you run across a NTMTO or San/Nute squad your not boned from the start. :). Hope that helps
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2010
Posts: 3,562
Location: The Hutt, New Zealand
|
I was playing a semi-final in our Lower Hutt, New Zealand, championships last night, and we weren't playing a timed game, so we didn't have gambit. But after that, I think gambit should be always played, even in non-timed games, to help encourage confrontation.
My opponent had just a Cad Bane, with 70 hit points left, and I had a General Skywalker with 40 hit points (and 2 force points), an Echani Handmaiden with 30 hit points, and a Jedi Weapon Master with 10 hit points (and 0 force points).
Because it was a semi-final, I played negatively, and ran away, and it ended up being a stalemate with me winning because I had more points on the board. Given the circumstances, it wouldn't have been very rational for me to charge Cad Bane - the other player was keeping him more than 10 squares from General Skywalker, and in cover away from the Echani.
Given that situation, I'd always be in favour of playing gambit from now on, even if the game isn't timed - at least it helps to force a confrontation around the gambit area in situations like the above, instead of allowing someone to hide once they get a points lead - that just makes people frustrated.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
With the 3/2 scoring I don't really build for gambit anymore. I tend to play aggressive squads that get in there and get-r-done (and I see others also playing squads that are designed to engage). I do think that gambit is still necessary, but with the change to the 3/2 scoring and the fact that 200 pts is the new standard and the fact that even in a fast paced game you aren't really ever going to get more than 50 or so pts of gambit max (on average) gambit doesn't seem to be near as big as it was a year ago (when it was common for games to end 45-43). It is still necessary to make sure that the game moves at a decent pace and that people don't hide and try and snipe a 2pt victory in a match that they could otherwise not win.
|
|
|
Guest |