I like the idea of gambit as a "tiebreaker" (essentially TJ's suggestion). Have both players keep track as normal, but it only gets added if the game doesn't finish in time.

ETA The main concern, as I see it, is concessions. Should a player be "penalized" by "losing" the gambit they've earned if their opponent concedes before time is up? Especially if we add more point options for wins, that could make some difference in outcomes and be open to abuse.

Great conversation with Bryan that I think bore some good fruit.

He brought up valid points about the positive benefits of 10pt gambit. It really got me thinking -

Is 10 pt gambit really the issue? It wouldn't be if it didn't artificially end games early.


Chargers said it really well.



Our game has steadily drifted away from this, and it has saddened me for years. Well meaning changes in tournament scoring and gambit have propelled it. Now we certainly don't want to go back to 15-18 score games ("the dark times"), but I think virtually all of us want games to finish. Really finish.


Why do games end before a team is entirely defeated or the time is up? It's like people don't like playing minis, lol.




So what the real culprit isn't 10pt gambit (at least not alone) - it's the idea of a game being finished before one team is entirely defeated.

Games SHOULD NOT END WHEN A PLAYER REACHES 200.

They should end either when:

-1 player has defeated all the other players pieces that are worth points (reinforcements don't count just like always)

or

-The round ends that the players were on when time is up.



This essentially is TJ's suggestion of adding gambit at the end of the game. In the end they are exactly the same. For some reason that wording description was confusing to some people though, and brought forward inaccurate impressions of what it means.

Scoring 200 does not end the game seems to be more clear.



So - regardless of if (or what) changes occur with our tournament scoring system, this change seems like a no-brainer.

Do we want games to actually finish? Yes. OK - this is the solution.


Thank you Chargers for the topic, thank you TJ for pinpointing the real issue, and thanks Bryan for the super cool convo between 2 dudes trying to keep the game they love going in a good direction!

You have some valid points.

When you say “end up with the same problem” - we might be talking about different problems.

The problem I find most egregious is games ending before time is up, yet both players still have pieces worth points on the board. To me - this game is not finished.

Games not ending at 200 (which in essence the same as adding gambit at the end) solves this problem.

Keep in mind - score only matters if both players have pieces worth points still on the board. If you defeat every one of your opponents pieces that are worth points, you win. Period. No matter what.

Then gambit only becomes a factor in games that don’t finish.


So simply getting a bunch of gambit doesn’t win you the game unless you can also survive the full time limit. But couple that with my other suggestions in the tournament scoring thread, and the motivation becomes kill all the opponents pieces in every game, not just get to 200 as quickly as possible.

I feel like adding gambit at the end of the game may be the way to go with this. I don't however feel like 5 point gambit should make a comeback, especially if you need a 10 point piece to score it. I feel like gambit would be ignored for the most point with that system as most players are not going to offer their opponent the opportunity to score 10 kill points for a 5 point gambit that may or may not even help you when it gets added at the end of game. I feel like that situation would be almost the same as not having a gambit zone to drive engagement. I know most of the games I play don't usually go over 45 minutes before 1 squad is defeated to the point where a game could be called for concession by a TO easily so in my mind the system of adding gambit at the end seems like a good place to start investigating/ looking at data if we want to make a change.

I feel like this question (and to some extent the 1-point loss question) comes down to what kind of games we want to play and encourage as a community. We all can remember being locked out by someone that just waited until time was almost up, ducked out, sniped one piece, and claimed victory. Gambit is a way to negate that strategy. It's a way of changing the culture around games. Personally, I much prefer a game where both players are actively engaged (mentally, not just physical engagement) and feel like they have a chance of winning up until the last round. I don't really want to demolish my opponent--I actually feel a bit bad about it. While I know that's my personal issue, I think it's useful context. 10-point gambit encourages people to put their pieces at risk. No, not all engagement happens in the center. However, in my experience, most does, and the games where it hasn't happened that way, it's been because one player stuck their neck out and brought the fight to the other. Usually in those games neither side gets significant gambit, because they're too busy duking it out. Those can absolutely be fun games, so I'm not disputing that good games can happen without gambit.

What I am disputing is the idea that there's something inherently unfair about giving an advantage to a player who actively designs a squad to be able to risk a piece in the first round. Now, there are some squads where it's not a big risk, because of protected gambit on the map you're on, or because your opponent doesn't see the gambit-getting piece as worth their time to kill (see Droopy McCool on Gangster's Vault). But to some extent, that decision is the opponent's problem. If they don't feel like they can spare a 30-point piece (just an example) to keep me from scoring maybe as much as 40 or 50 points, that's their decision. And the majority of games just don't go down like that. More often, someone gets to gambit first because of superior speed or positioning (again, this can be a map issue). I feel like one of the objectives of the game is to try to force your opponent to play a game that they don't really want to play, either because of positioning, strategy, or actual negation of their abilities. Those are the most fun games to me, because they force me to think outside of the box of what my squad does. Gambit is part of that.

I do see the problem with pieces that can start the game in gambit and then just sit there, not actively doing anything, for four or five rounds while the action goes on around them. I feel like there is a solution to that, but I'm not sure that changing the gambit rules in the ways that have been discussed really addresses that particular issue. Maybe make it so pieces with Emplacement or Forward Positioning cannot score gambit. I don't particularly like that idea, as the pieces have been designed with gambit in mind, and some of those pieces are more "active" than others. I'm willing to try the idea of adding in gambit after the game ends, so that that in and of itself doesn't end the game. I just don't know if that is the actual problem we're trying to solve, or if it will encourage the kind of games we want to play.

I too want engagement. I don’t know how encouraging “kill ‘em” all is anything other than that. It’s the epitome of that.

I’ve just as often (if not more so) seen players move their last piece into gambit at the end of the round when their opponent has no more activations. Then they can pull back out and put a different piece in at the end of the next round. Literally risking nothing.

It’s a false narrative that getting gambit = engagement. I do think it’s necessary, but it gets abused (thus the title of the thread).

I’ve also seen players lock themselves into gambit (and not engage).

Button line - there is no question when one team is entirely defeated, who won. The issue arises when pieces are left alive on both teams. Time limit is an unfortunate necessity. However - games ending before time while both teams have pieces worth points left, is literally against the point of the game.

I am adamant that gambit should not finish games early.

I see very valid points on both sides as far as 10pt gambit, so while personally I’d prefer 5pt gambit, I’m willing to let that go since there is strong resistance.

However - I have yet to see anyone make a solid point on the side of gambit ending games before they are done being a good thing.

I think these are valid points, but it needs to be broken into 2 categories:

-Scenario play -


-Competitive skirmish play -


With scenario play - I absolutely think there are other factors that can and should factor in.

However, with competitive skirmish play - I think the game at it's core is pretty clear - last team left standing wins.

This is directly from the rulebook:


Doesn't get more clear than that. We have gravitated away from that. We need to get back there.

I too find it very unsatisfying if I "win" but don't kill the opponents full squad. Especially if there is time left. To me, the game is not over. I want to finish the game.

So much emphasis has been put on "finishing games" over the years (and rightfully so), that it's pretty ironic that a system came about to artificially stop games before they are truly finished.

So let's simply correct that long overlooked error, and allow games (not gone to time) to FINISH.

You brought up one example of abuse, but there are several others (as noted in the thread). This isn’t just about lockouts. That doesn’t happen very often anymore (but not never), but other abuses happen FREQUENTLY. Games are stopped before time with both players having pieces worth points left on the board. That should not happen. We need to end that.

So in short - it is broken, and has been for quite some time. It’s been overlooked for far too long. We need to fix it.

To answer your other question, at this point it looks like if time is called and you have over 200pts (and more points than your opponent), you get full tournament victory points (currently 3). While other things were discussed, I don’t see that changing.

To me, those statements are contradictory. Yes, players are following the rules and following them in their pursuit of a win. Nothing wrong with that. Except that the rules as is allow players to win by controlling the center of the board and forcing the other playing to come into the kill zone to TRY to catch-up. That shouldn't be the only strategy. But it has certainly become the most common.




The rules as is do promote engagement. But not necessarily all kinds of engagement.

Yes, “abuse” is subjective. Yes our game has evolved (that was not a quote from the Rebel storm rulebook btw, it was from the final rulebook printed by WotC).

It really all comes down to this:

Do you want games to be stopped before time is up, even if both players have pieces worth points still left on the board.

My answer to that is a resounding and whole hearted “NO”

It seems that most others agree.


Tell me if this sounds fair:

Here’s a game where both squads are fully engaged and go straight to fighting, playing at a quick pace. Here’s where we are at the end of round 8, with 15 minutes left on the clock.

Player A has only 100pt Luke Skywalker on the board with 10hp left, and has earned 6 rounds of gambit.

Player B has full health Dash Rendar RS (28 points) and full health Ayala Secura Jedi Knight (29 pts) left and has earned 8 rounds of gambit.

Score: player A 203, player B 180.

Currently this would end the game 15 minutes early, with both players having pieces worth points left on the board.

Yet player B scored more gambit. Player B has the clear advantage. There is time left on the clock.

Why are we stopping the game here?


This is something that happens. That fact that it’s even possible needs to be nixed, much less that similar scenarios have been occurring for years.

I don’t really understand the argument for not finishing the game when there is time left.