Without thinking too deeply, I actually think it sounds like a really good idea.

I assume 5 point pieces getting gambit is around from when 100 points was the dominant format - so for 200 points, it makes sense that you need a 10 point piece to get gambit.

Maybe a ten point gambit is the way to go.

I think the real issue is 61-58 or 8-5 scoring games. If this game was not so far along, the 5-3-1 scoring system is really nice. It works with eight person tournies also.

In a 200pt game where a 5pt character can move 12 squares, attack at +20 for 40 damage... perhaps 5pts for an end of round gambit is out of date. We should playtest that with several squadtypes and collect some data.

5pt gambit was introduced during the 100 point format to discourage the turtling/ lockout wins of that day.
However, people found a way around that, as ANY piece could be used to score gambit.
The tactic was, out-activate, get gambit with an ugg brought in with Lobot, win init and then run it away 12 squares.
Repeat each round and force the opponent to engage while also earning gambit points.

It wasn't until 200 point format that gambit became restricted to only 5+ point pieces and no reinforcements.
However, 200 point format had the even bigger problem of slowplay, so 3 and 2 point wins were introduced.
This made gambit very important towards a 2 point win in a close game, but not so important towards a 3 point win.
Who has time to worry about 5pts of gambit when your trying to destroy your opponents entire squad?!

Last rounds playing Jason K in Chicago Regional it was obvious he would win, but I still had lots of commanders in the backfield and he didn't have much time left on the clock to finish me off. We both were playing large swarm squads, I had Dalaa snowtroopers and he had Vong. I could have tried to forced him to come after me and give him in 2 point win. Instead, I ran pieces out 12 squares for him to pick off. When I extended my hand while i still had pieces on the board and said "congrats" he looked surprised, I reminded him how many snowtroopers he killed earlier and that with gambit he had just reached 200 points.

The point of my story is that when going for a 3 we don't think much about gambit because it seems insignificant.
It's "200 for a 3" and gambit does contribute to that 200, but players only really focus on gambit in close low scoring games.
If gambit were 10 points then the average gambit would be 40-50 points? About a quarter of the points needed to reach 200.
Then in my game with Jason he would have reached 200 at least a round earlier, even if I had tried to run and hide from him.

Personally, I'd rather see an activation limit, but I've said that before and it hasn't happened, so I do think there is something to be said for finding other options to encourage faster engagement.

-I really like the 5-3-1 idea, so that full wins become more important.
-Bigger gambit is also a good idea.

Assuming the 5 point piece you mean is the Snowtrooper, It can't get gambit because I think it's printed cost that matters. Regardless I think 10 points for gambit is fair, because there are a lot of 5 point diplomats out there not to mention tantives. If you let the tantive live it gets gambit. If you kill it, they get a cannon shot. Lose-lose situation for you.

Personally, I like the chess-clock option: each player has 30 minutes to play. Once they reach 30 minutes, their pieces all spin (or don't do anything) for the rest of the match. I know it's obviously not going to happen, but I think it would finally do SOMETHING to prevent the NPE that is slow play and stall-tactics.

Definitely in favour of increasing gambit to require a 10 point piece or higher

I love the idea of bumping Gambit up to 10. While I am not a fan of slow play and yes it is a NPE, a chess clock is not the way to go. As atmsalad says we don't want to frustrate the heck out of a potential new player.

And as far as the scoring goes, I'm not really a big fan of a 5-3-1 scoring system. Here is why. My first tournament I ever went to I played my best friend in the opening round in Virginia. Less that 30 minutes in he concedes, now in a 5-3-1 scoring system I can report that I got the full win but he got 100 to help him out as well. It's a system that is asking to be abused.

Activation limits would be too difficult to keep track of. You would have to count how many activations you have left. For instance, if rounds were limited to 15 acts and I ran a 28 character squad, I would activate 15 characters and not activate 13 characters each round. But what if I ran something like Bastilla with over 15 characters? Could I turn on her ABM and leave it on all game just by not activating her again? Seems problematic.

I think the best answer is to set a maximum character limit on the base squad.
Then the contest to see who can build the largest sized squad could come to an end.
Players could count on swarms being generally restrained to a certain size.
It would be easier to build squads and prepare for different match ups with other squad types.

If the 200 point game were given a base-squad max of 18-16 characters...
A 23 character snowtrooper sqaud with 13 snowtroopers would need to lose 6-8 snowtroopers.
Now it has 7-5 snowtroopers and an open slot for a 30pt-40pt character in it's base squad.
It would start the game with 18-16 acts with Ozzel and could still bring in 8 more snowtroopers
during the game with reserves.. which seems to happen freakishly often.

Players could still use reinforcements to bring in free characters to boost their squad over 16 characters.
However, reinforcement counters like Bribery and Wuher would become more effective since squads were of reasonable size.

3-2-1 scoring, 10 point gambit, and a character limit on the base-squad
Perhaps all three should be added to the floor rules

I like the 10pt gambit as well...good idea, OP. As far as the chess clock idea, while I like elements of that, the difference between chess and SWM is that the acting player in SWM doesn't make all of the decisions on his turn, unlike chess. Evade rolls, bodyguard decisions, spending force points are among many activities a player can make on his opponent's turn. That leads to time charged to the acting player sucked away by his opponent. If that situation could somehow be solved, then the chess clock option could be explored.