A continuation from the first thread about whether or not Gambit should be raised.

2004-05 the original game was not designed with tournament play in mind.
It was realized that lockout-stalling tactics were a serious problem in competitive play.
Gambit was introduced late 2005 to counter stalling-lockout tactics and encourage engagement.
For YEARS we played 5 point gambit in the standard game of 100 points and it worked.

"The Universe era ushered in “Gambit” scoring somewhat muting the abusive issues with Override but still leaving it as a dominant strategy. Lobot brought Override to every faction, but in doing so also left the Rebels and Republic in the dominant position of having access to double Override." - Nickname

2007-09 the standard game was increased to 150 points and we continued the same style of 5 point gambit.
It was realized that in a larger format squads with multiple low cost (or free) characters collecting gambit eliminated gambit from the game. Gambit was revised so that only pieces worth the 5 gambit points could collect it.
For YEARS we played (revised 5 point gambit) in the standard game of 150 and it worked.

"In a variant designed to discourage players from hiding, known as Gambit format, players also score 5 victory points at the end of every round in which a character is within 4 squares of the center. Gambit format is the format used in sanctioned point tournaments."- Wikipedia

2010-14 the standard game was increased to 200 points and we continued with the same style of (revised 5 point gambit.) It's becoming obvious that gambit is no longer worth playing for and too many games are not coming to a 200 point completion. Gambit should be increased to 10 points in the standard game of 200 points and return to it's original tournament play value. For YEARS we've played (revised 5 point gambit) in the standard game of 200 and Gambit scoring no longer functions as it once did.

"Gambit scoring grants a player five victory points at the end of a round, if they have at least one figure within four squares of the center of the map. Additional figures near the center do not grant extra points. The points are the same as if a player eliminated an opposing figure of cost five. If the total of (Point cost enemy figures eliminated) + (Gambit points) = Squad Build Point Limit, then that player wins the game. For example, in a 100 point game, eliminating 80 points of enemy figures and scoring 20 gambit points by the end of a round would mean victory for that player as soon as the gambit points are given." - Klecser

I do think that it could be well playtested also. In the Months following gen con we tend to have a tourney lull. Generally people will playtest things during this time. As jake said we don't need to take away from playtesting v-set pieces, but i feel that it is a good time to add in additional playtesting. I know that for me, generally, i have more time during the fall to test things out. I may have a small playgroup, but it is easy enough to do a few matches each week to test this. If each play group gives feedback on say 4+ matches a month (2 matches every 2 weeks) Which would not be too frequent, then we would have a good number of tests done before the floor rules update in January. This should not take away from playtesting v-set pieces, but rather be additional.

I'm totally for it! Maybe some playtesting first, but I think it's a really good idea

(Cough) bump!

While I don't particularly agree with this statement, this is exactly why we should playtest before implementing a rules change. No matter what the rule is, there will always be squads that attempt to abuse or circumvent it. What we need to test is that gambit once again becomes relevant by encouraging engagement. We've already seen an exception in preliminary testing with a Naboo squad that can't gain gambit with its attacking pieces but denies its opponents gambit by occupying the center. Exceptions are fine as long as the game on the whole moves forward. I think it will and most of the community thinks so too. Let's test it a bit with the goal of installing it in the January rules update.

I was his opponent in this match. I haven't listened to the last SHNN yet, but there's a bit more to the story. He had a spotter Droid with Cad Bane well outside of Gambit. It made no sense for me to march across the map to be able to attack his stealth guys while they blow me apart. Or use my one accurate shooter and possibly kill myself on his energy shields. I would have won anyway, but it would have been drawn out and not very fun for either of us. He had given me the win and I simply took it. My "penalty" was only getting a 2pt win. Regardless, all I had to do was kill one Geonosian and I had enough points even if gambit was 10 points per round.

This aside, the more I think about it, the more I like 10 point gambit. It's a much better way to encourage engagement.

It's more of a mercy thing here. If this happens the game has been won. Do you really want to force the losing player to suffer through waiting until the other player reaches 200 as opposed to only 5 rounds?

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up tim. Also, the more play testing I get in the more I am liking it.

Lol, actually Lou asked why I didn't do it sooner. We played another couple rounds because I was really wanting to see if there was a better option. But when it comes down to the spotter droid I'm just not going to risk killing myself when he's already given me the win.