My reply to that would be that that original intent of the game was to have one squad eliminate the other entirely. Gambit came about to encourage that, not to surpass that.

Thus if a squad eliminates another before time, without gambit favoring in - that is the desired result. I would consider that a success, and the result is clear.

Battle Ready is not simply an ability to secure gambit. It is an ability that can set up a better advantageous location to attack the other squad. To simply say Battle Ready is mostly used to secure gambit is to reduce the ability down to a sad state. That may indeed be what it is used for most currently, but that is a greater indictment against the way gambit is being (I would typically say abused here, but I have committed to using more neutral language . . .) focused on as a primary means to win, as opposed to using the ability to get closer to engagement with the intention of eliminating the other squad.

Your reasoning actually adds in to my original point

I agree with this. Gambit is a tactic that is valid to use in our game. If a player chooses not to utilize gambit, because they don't think their squad needs it, that's their choice. But using the gambit rules as they currently stand is not abuse, in my opinion.

Leaving semantics aside, I still have concerns about this idea. I was one of the people that Tim spoke to in the past, and I have spoken to him since this thread resurfaced. When I initially spoke out, things got a little bit heated, so I've been reluctant to dive back in. But maybe, as Tim says, cooler heads will prevail and we can have a real discussion about the best direction for the game.

Basically, my concerns boil down to this: I LIKE the way the game is now. I like being able to have a range of tactics available, including gambit, and piecing together the best way for my squad to win in each match-up. That doesn't mean I always use gambit, but in a lot of matches, I do. I feel like we have a wide variety of squads that can compete at the highest levels, including melee-heavy squads, which had always lagged a little bit behind. I'm afraid of the cultural changes that could come along with taking away the gambit accumulation tactic. We've seen it in this thread. People who like being able to win on gambit have been accused of wanting games to end "early" and arguing in bad faith. If that attitude takes hold, I'm afraid that whole squad types will fall out of favor. I may not like certain squads, but I want them to be options in the game.

Another thing I'm afraid of is the type of squads that will flourish in a new meta with this rule. People say that they will play more aggressively, but if they aren't bringing aggressive squads, I don't see how that can be true. People already play out act and smash and similar squads, squads that rarely get three-point wins and against which it's nearly impossible to get a three-point win without gambit. If games against those squads are required to continue past the point when someone gets to the build total, it's a boon for the high-act player, who gets more time to try to whittle away at the rock player. The rock player, on the other hand, may have been doing the best they could just to hang in there long enough to get to the build total. If the game is going to go one or two more rounds (or more), the rock player may not be able to hold on long enough. I don't think there's a clear "fair" in that situation--it's just a question of which player you want to mess with.

I want to be clear--high act squads are just as valid as low-act squads, and have a place in the game. I just don't want to see the balance swing back toward high-act squads at the expense of others.

TJ also points out another potential issue--more games will go to time. I understand that for proponents of the idea, that's a feature, not a bug. Personally, I'd rather play more games than longer ones. Some games should end before time. It has long been a point of pride for me that few of my games go to time--one way or the other, they end with a knock-out. With this new rule, it'll be a whole new ballgame.

There does seem to be an issue here that negatively affects people's enjoyment of the game. That's a problem, for sure. I just don't know what the solution is. I do feel that the solution proposed could introduce problems and make the game less enjoyable for a lot of people who like it as it is.

I think this thread is proof positive that not everyone feels the same as you here Trevor. There has been a large number of players enjoying the game less and less over the last few years, in large part due to this.

It may be a small thing to you, but it's very big to others.

I think I'd put what you said this way:

While it might be possible to make the game a little less fun for a couple players, let's be aware that it's also possible to make the game quite a bit better for a large number of players.

There are players who feel this way that are entrenched in the competitive scene, but also players that have been feeling it on smaller levels as well. Tim from WI (Chargers) has been calmly and rational yet very direct about the fact that he greatly dislikes this specific aspect of the game. (I don't mean to speak for you here Tim, if I have mischaracterized your feelings please correct me.) I bring this up because he is a great example of someone whose character is beyond reproach. Anyone who knows him will tell you he is a consummate good sport, playing purely for the love of the game. He was key in fostering a robust group that started with many younger players. Many grew with the game and became excellent players too. My point is that he knows the game, knows what makes it fun for large groups of people, and has pointed out specifically THIS as something that leaves a bitter taste in his mouth. When he (and many others) say there is something really bothering them about the direction the game has gone - we need to listen.

Standing from the privileged spot of: "Hey - I think everything is pretty great now" - of course you wouldn't be excited about changing something.

There is a large percentage of the community saying - "No, it's not all smiles, hearts and butterflies here. This is a major problem that is making the games we love less fun. We're not gonna just give up and walk away - because we love the game too much.

No question, there are a number of people who have said this is an issue for them, and the community is listening. Something does appear to need to change to preserve those people's enjoyment. But what?

All Trevor and I are saying is, don't be so quick to sacrifice the enjoyment of one group for the enjoyment of another (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Trevor). And I would add: don't be so quick to assume that silence equals agreement. I assure you, there are plenty of people who haven't posted in this thread who have concerns, some big, some small, about making the change you're suggesting. They have their own reasons for keeping silent, and I'm not going to "out" them here.

The last few pages have been much more civil than earlier points in the thread, and I acknowledge that people on both sides have gotten personal and heated. I've apologized to you personally for my part in that, but I will do so publicly, as well.

I'm not really interested in arguing with anyone. Trevor and a few other people asked for those on the "other side" to post, so I did.

I love this game too, and I don't want to walk away, but like Trevor, if it becomes something I don't recognize in the future, that might be the best thing for me to do. I certainly can't stay a part of something that's so divided over what the game should be, so some reasonable resolution does need to be made.

Yes, well-reasoned. If a game goes 11 rounds of combat without a full squad defeat, then that's crazy! lol And yes, this version of the gambit change will certainly require less adjustment than my suggestion. I could easily support trying this out.




And Tim, I have repeatedly acknowledged that the concern you've raised (games ending too soon because of so many gambit points) is a real concern. Multiple times. At no point have I ever said "Who cares?" about what you and others are concerned about. Rather, I really do want to see what we can do to improve the game.

Rather, in my most recent post I was simply saying that (for a mature and established game like SWM) it's easier to mess it up than it is to perfect it. So yes, let's try to perfect it, but let's not assume that a change (any change) will necessarily make the game better.

Other than Knight's Enclave, I don't think any standoffs we've seen have been the fault of the maps.

Proposal.

Play 2 tournaments. A * mock top 4 of 4 good players. 2 from each position.

Random pairings. But, create a squad based on the gambit format alone. The opposing position should bring 2 squads to show the system can be abused while remaining competitive, and following all rules including no slow play.

Then play an entire different tournament, flipping the positions.

The results should speak volumes.

I certainly don't want that. Nor do I think anyone on here wants any side to get more out of the game than the other. It would be horrible to splinter the community. It's hard enough without new product on store shelves to get players into, or stay in, the game. We don't need to drive them away.

I'm optimistic that a solution will be found. There are a lot of smart, experienced players here. Yes, there is some disagreement at times. That's okay. (As long as it's civil and not personal.) Each idea has some merit and good intent behind it. The discussion will lead to something that improves play so that all enjoy playing the game and supports a great variety of play styles.