Yes, that's fair. Player B should have focused on taking out Luke earlier. If Luke stayed alive that long, it's to player A's credit. They played well and kept their high cost character alive. Depending on the positioning and Force points, player B doesn't necessarily have a major advantage since if if A wins init, Luke can take out Aayla and run away so that Dash can't shoot him or he gets cover, and then he can destroy Dash next round.

I'm not even sure I can agree to disagree on that one. There's plenty of time on the clock but a player who has more rounds of gambit and complete control of the game loses? That's crazy. Having more rounds of gambit shows that they were the one trying to engage.

What to do about it, if anything? I can understand if someone says it's not a big enough issue to worry about. If people do think it's a big issue, I could understand several different possible ways to address it. But on it's own, well, I hope nobody ever faces that situation.

Yeah I guess I was just trying to be kind? the response makes so little sense that it seems purposefully obtuse or simply contrarian.

If gambits purpose is to force engagement, why are we allowing it to stop engagement before it's finished?

It boils down to this: Let's not let games end before time or one team having no pieces worth points left. It's really that simple.

The most I've seen in "disagreement" to this more or less "well I've never seen a problem". Ignorance is not really a valid counter argument. It does happen. And even if it doesn't happen all the time, the fact that it is even possible is an egregious loophole we've ignored for far too long.

Let me ask this - what is the problem with finishing the game out?

Honestly - the only answer I can think of as to why a player wouldn't want that to happen is that they think they have a better chance of winning by stacking up gambit but not being able to finish off the other player (in other words not engaging).


Here's another question:

If we were to institute the rule of not stopping at 200 before time is called or one player having no pieces worth points left on the board - what is the downside?

Absolutely! I agree with you! I was trying to paint a picture with that example, but the hp left are irrelevant.

The only way we would ever know exactly what will happen - IS TO ACTUALLY LET IT PLAY OUT! (Don't we like playing the game? I would take either side of that equation and relish playing it out!)



Apparently. It does seem completely counter to the years of "must have engagement" and "finish games" mantra that has been preached for years.

What I don't think is being recognized is that it is a major NPE to many players. This thread is evidence of that. It's honestly one of my biggest NPEs in the game. We're not bringing it up just because we're bored. This really effects the game in a negative way for many players.

Keep in mind I'm one of the creators of TILE WARS. The "no ifs, ands or buts - Kill 'em all" format.

Games ending before time with pieces left on the board makes my skin crawl.

It's enough of a negative impact that several of us are going to bat over it. I may be the most outspoken at this point, but it's because I realize now how am far from alone I am in feeling this way.


I think the most frustrating part is that for the players who do kill the entire other squad - nothing changes. The argument on the other side is by definition wanting games to end before time with pieces left on the board. But nobody seems willing to actually say that. They keep putting out tangential arguments that are either irrelevant or means nothing would change on their end if it were instituted.

It feels like there is a significant group that is passionate that this is a bad thing.

The other group won't come out and say they think it's a great thing - they just are trying to negate our negative experience of this happening (by in large, not 100%).

Most people haven't really answered the question: what is the downside?

If you play fast and completely kill your opponent (or get completely killed) - nothing changes. If games go to time - nothing changes. There is a very specific thing we want to prevent, and this is pinpointing it.

We as a group are expressing that this really bothers us. I feel like we're being gaslit that we're overreacting that we think it's a problem at all.

Are you simply going to say well "too bad" and alienate a significant segment of the community over something that would change literally nothing if you already finish games by killing all the pieces?

Wow, talk about gaslighting. I feel like that was a personal attack.

I literally quoted 5 people in the original post

If you count some people that don’t really see a need to change anything and some people that are really upset by it as evenly split, I think you may need to examine your criteria.

How important of an issue is it to you that games must finish early through gambit points?

It’s a hill I am ready to die on.

So unless you feel that strongly on the opposite side - that’s not even.

I don't think this became an issue until we went to 10pt gambit. With 5pt gambit, it was rare that someone would go over 200pts before it was apparent who had the upper hand. With 10pt gambit, games can (and sometimes do) end with someone going over 200pts while both sides have 50+ pts of characters on the board. When those 50pts of the losing side are just back-row commanders, no big deal. In that case, the game is decided anyway and it's nice to not have to waste time chasing down the commanders. But when those 50pts are combatants and either side could win if there were another round, ending early is a pretty disappointing outcome in my book.

Either of these would be a good change in my opinion:
* Go back to 5pt gambit. Because I never noticed this issue with 5pt gambit. Gambit totals just didn't get high enough to make the game feel like it ended too early.
* Add in gambit only at the end of the game. Add it in regardless of whether the game goes to time or one side is wiped out. That way it doesn't affect scoring.

+1. I dig this, however, I still like Chargers idea of a 10 pt mini to get 5 pts

I’m not seeing how that is any functionally different than what I put

(Edit - other than explaining further in case of a point score tie above 200, which is an addendum, not contradictory. Furthermore, it is unnecessary with the proposed change.)

So, one of the conflicts I'm seeing is "The game shouldn't be over until one side is eradicated" vs "I shouldn't have to go hunt down my opponent's office staff to clinch the win."

Is there any penalty in place that might unintentionally prevent honorable concessions? Or is there any reason to believe many/any people would slow-play or turtle their commanders to be jerks instead of just conceding?

Losing on a technicality of gambit when you had the upper hand is bad, but I'm not sure it warrants forcing folks to go dig out General Rieekan and an R7 from the pointless turbolift in the corner. While we're encouraging engagement, we also need to make sure folks have space to end the engagement when there's a clear victor. This is Star Wars Minis, not Monopoly


I think it is VERY important that we get some data on this Maybe at the upcoming tournament, ask folks to pay special attention to reporting those situations where they reasonably could have pulled out the win, and/or it was clear they lost but the game dragged on another round or so to hit the point limit.

I'm still in the "Let's change something" camp, but the data may be important here. On a one-to-one ratio, yeah, I'd rather have to go chase down a couple of fugitive ugnaughts one game if it meant my GOWK was able to tank out the win and overcome a gambit lead in the next. But, if changing things means that 9 out of 10 games turn into a snipe hunt and only one of them gives a shot - maybe not even a good shot - at a close win, it's really not worth the kerfuffle.


One last thought: what if there was another threshold above 200 points that gambit DID count for? So, the game ends at 200 ONLY if you have eliminated your opponent's entire squad, but gambit CAN end it at 250? Probably more trouble than it's worth. However, it would hopefully give a time cushion to finish the match properly but still have a mechanism for a decisive cut-off - if they can't challenge your 10hp Luke in gambit, then they really should be out of chances to win. I get that death traps aren't fun, but at the end of the game that's just better positioning, and we shouldn't ban that.