My comments were not meant to be a "beat down"...just looking at it from a "different point of view".

Interesting. I guess this discussion really comes down to a question of whether or not we think the gambit system is a necessary part of SWM in competition.

Gambit was not part of the original design of the game. The original design intent did not include gambit points at all.

And yet, WotC decided to add gambit rules after the game was released. Why would they alter the original design intent? Because it did not in itself encourage or require engagement in combat; the gambit system was a necessary addition if that was going to happen. Another way of saying it: the original design of the game was not complete (at least not for purposes of competitive play with a time limit). While it is good to aim for killing all of an opponent's pieces (original design intent), a player's choice of tactics and strategy could draw that process out over several hours' time, rather than concluding within an hour. Therefore, the game was adjusted away from original design intent, so that games would conclude within a reasonable time-frame.

Therefore, I think we need to ask ourselves some questions that are at a more foundational level than we've been asking so far:

1. Is SWM better, or worse with the gambit system? Is 'original design intent' the gold standard that we should start pursuing again? Or should we recognize that perhaps WotC recognized a flaw in their original game design and solved it by instituting the gambit system? Which 'version' of the game is better?

2. If the gambit system is bad for SWM, what can take its place? Or does anything need to? Perhaps some people would like to remove the gambit system. I think Tim's suggested rule change essentially falls into this category, because gambit points are effectively only applied after time is called.

3. If the gambit system is good for SWM, can we do anything to improve it? Or should we? Personally, I think that gambit points should not be awarded at the end of a round if both players are engaged (ie, have a qualifying piece in the gambit zone). Think of gambit points as a penalty to the non-engaging player (to incentivize him/her to engage!), rather than as a participation trophy for everyone who has a piece near the center.

This is a good question.
Unfortunately, the gambit system itself was rather abstract from the start: 4 squares from the center of the map is a relatively arbitrary way to measure engagement. Certainly true. But it's also the only one we've got.

Imperial Assault (by FFG) has a different method of forcing engagement: each map has 2 different Missions, which absolutely cannot be accomplished without getting near to your opponent's pieces. Engagement happens because one or both of the following is true: (1) at least one player wants to blow up his opponent's squad! (2) at least one player is trying to accomplish the Mission objectives (and will therefore win unless his opponent responds).

In SWM, if the main part of combat happens outside of gambit, then that's almost always because one player is being significantly more aggressive than the other...and as a result, the aggressive player's pieces are free to hold gambit while combat happens. The thing is, the aggressive player is also extending himself (possibly over-extending) and exposing his pieces to damage, while his opponent is able to hunker down and set up a kill box.

I think we need to ask ourselves whether we want to reward aggressive play, or not. The inverse of that question is whether we want to reward non-engagement, or not.


I'm not sure that's a niche type of squad...more like a squad with movement breakers and the ability to deal out good damage while also surviving return fire. In other words, a good squad!

On a more serious note, yes. It pushes the game toward squads that are geared for combat, rather than for non-engagement. No question. Personally, I think that's a good thing.

Agreed. Whatever encourages engagement is probably helpful, and whatever discourages it is probably unhelpful.


The end goal always has been, and always will be, to defeat all of your opponent's characters.

However, that ultimate goal is not a possibility as long as your opponent is avoiding combat. In that case, the secondary goal of winning via points (reaching the build total via a combination of kill points and gambit points) is available as an option.

Thankfully, (at least personally) I haven't usually found this to be a problem. In the past few years I'm only aware of one of my games that has gone to time (vs Jason in the Swiss rounds of the Championship this year), and that game was certainly not a case of combat avoidance!

Nevertheless, as I've said, Tim does raise a good point: there are times when games end before combat is finished. Hence my suggestion that gambit is scored only as a penalty, and not as a participation trophy. It will do one of two things in every game: (1) either keep the gambit scores way down (to 10 or 20pts most of the time), or else (2) give extra (game-winning) points to one player if his opponent refuses to engage.

I thought a full win was awarded if that was the case? (Chasing down back-row commanders is dumb)
Or is it strictly by points?

Actually, if you think about it, once you've defeated your opponent's squad except for his back-line commanders, then you just need to keep your guys in the gambit zone. That's 10pts per round, and at that point in the match, rounds only take a minute or two to finish since there are so few pieces on the board. It'll probably take as many rounds to slowly whittle those commanders down as it will to wait in gambit for them to come to you.

So you actually wouldn't have to chase down any back-line commanders. If your opponent wants those commanders to come in to try to take out your remaining (and wounded) characters before you reach the build total, then it's his responsibility to make that happen.




The reason I like this situation better than the 5-5 gambit scoring is because those points can eventually add up to the point where they artificially end the game when there's still meaningful combat to be done. 30 or 35 pts is enough to enable you to ignore your opponent's Dash Rendar or last Storm Commando, etc.


Having said that, though, I'd still be happy to go with the 5-5 gambit system if people would prefer that over the penalty-vs-trophy system that I've suggested. I really do think Tim has pointed out an actual problem that should be addressed, and so I'd be happy with either method of adjusting how gambit works.

A full win is awarded if you get to 200pts. When we had 5pt gambit, the amount gambit someone earned pretty much just covered the cost of the back row commanders, so that the winner could get the full win without having to chase them down. With 10pt gambit, games end too early, when meaningful combat can still take place. If the rules becomes "both players in gambit zone = no gambit", then it seems likely that we'll have more games going up to time with a clear winner but nobody at 200pts. Especially against a squad like Daala that tends to have a lot of back row commanders. But I could be wrong about that.

Maybe we should just go back to 5pt gambit but require a 10pt character?

Back to the topic title...

Current gambit points, especially in 200pt battles, accelerate game end times faster than they should.
Having gambit negated as long as the two sides are "duking" it out seems interesting...and it does leave the opening for gambit gain once one side's fighters have been defeated...pretty much cancelling the backroom commanders left.

I think the problem with subtracting points is that it would sometimes deprive people of the 100 points they need for the 1 victory point, though maybe you could ignore gambit for that calculation. It would also prevent games from ending early, because it's unlikely anyone would reach 200 points.

So when gambit changed the problem started?



Sounds like a job for a 3 point uggie.



I once read a post from you that said a mass killer is a must have in any squad. That way they don't out activate for long.



Standing toe-to-toe with GOWK or Darth Zannah is engagement and it could leave you with 0 Kill points!!! for the effort.



So, again, gambit is the problem?



Fewer than just changing how gambit is awarded?



I do not doubt your belief in this, However the second part is not necessarily true. If gambit is not going to end the game a player can keep their distance, cat and mouse for 45 minutes. With the proper amount of slow play, and picking off a couple mid level characters in the last 10 minutes or so, a player could get a timed win without any real engagement. This isn't a new concept. During the darkest parts of the competitive play years this happened consistently. Our numbers were severely diminished in that time.



This does not stop slow play now. Why would your change make any difference here? Slow play is a lack of meaningful engagement. At the end of a match scores of 3-1, 3-0 show real engagement. A score of 2-1 shows some engagement. The matchup would determine how strong that engagement might have been. Unfortunately we are still seeing consistent scores of 2-0. Often that points to someone slow playing. (not our main point, so moving on.)



In that game, gambit still could bring the game to a close prematurely. As I stated in my earlier post, that has been a thing for nearly the entire time. I thought that 5 points of gambit in a 150 game was about perfect. There was still some abuse, but it encouraged killing without without swinging it too far the other way. In a 200 point game it did not fully do its job. After an opponent sits back and takes a few minutes every phase to decide what uggie to spin in the back you are lucky to play 5 rounds. Then they rush in and kill a 30 point character in the last minute of the game. That is not the game I want to return to.

I understand that this section is only my opinion, but I believe it is valid. Prior to this year, have you ever played a tournament game, at the competitive level, that gambit could not end? I submit that a change to the distribution of gambit is the most logical change here. If gambit itself is the problem, which you indicated twice in your post, why would we change a different aspect of the game?