Hey all

There has been plenty of discussion lately (a lot of it by me admittedly, but lots of other contributions as well) about gambit, tournament victory points, when the game ends, etc.

There have been lots of things brought up, lots of great ideas. I have personally tried to stay open to feedback and tried to admit when I am in the minority or see strong resistance. I have had my opinion changed or conceded that it's a losing battle on many of the issues (1pt for losing players, 10pt gambit, tournament score superseding record, etc.)

Through it all a clarity has risen to the surface for my own thoughts on the matter.

That is that destroying all of your opponents pieces is the most pure form of the game. It is how the game was always intended to be played, and is bar far the most satisfying finish to the game - win or lose.

It is truly what embodies "engagement". It is the actual definition of finishing a game.

Things like gambit and tournament scoring systems only exist because not all games achieve this before time.

Think about it - if every game had one player destroy all of the other player's pieces before time - gambit and tournament scoring tie breakers wouldn't really be necessary.

Since time limits are a necessary evil for tournaments, to get back to the pure form of the game (while acknowledging strong resistance to certain changes) - I really see only 2 solutions that are reasonably viable.

I'd love to implement them both, but either alone will be an improvement. I will put each in its own separate thread to have their merits considered individually, and not become a muddled mess (lesson learned)


Allowing games to finish before time is called, if both players still have a chance to destroy of all their opponents pieces

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion on this.

A similar proposal of adding gambit after time is called was brought up - but there was a lot of confusion by this suggestion (would this add more to keep track of? would a player still receive a full win? etc) and some instances where it wouldn't be ideal (Losing player able to earn 1 pt, etc)

For this suggestion - let's scrap that verbiage. You will still add gambit to your score at the end of every round
Exactly the same as it is currently

clearing up concerns:

There was concern about how it would effect tournament victory points. The answer is that is nothing would change due to this being instituted.
Tournament victory point system:
3-2-1
3 points if you either destroy all the opponents pieces, OR have the higher score and it is 200 or over
(including gambit, which you add during the game)
Exactly the same as it is currently
2 points if you have the higher score but did not reach 200 points or higher
(including gambit, which you add during the game)
Exactly the same as it is currently
1 point if you lost, but reached 100pts or higher
(including gambit, which you add during the game)
Exactly the same as it is currently

Gambit

Gambit would not be effected. (gambit amount is a separate discussion, which I have personally conceded won't change)

10 point gambit
must be a non-reinforcement piece worth 10 or more points
4 squares from the center of the map
add to your score at the end of each round you achieve it
Exactly the same as it is currently



When the game ends:
1. One player destroys all the other player's pieces
2. Time is called, and the round is finished.
3. Concession (see below)

These all function
Exactly the same as it is currently

The one and only change -

Games don't end with time left on the clock, if both players have pieces that can do damage left on the board.

If one player literally has no pieces left that can do damage (Lobot, R7, caamasi noble, etc), and the opponent has reached 200, the game ends.

Engagement
If one player reaches 200 but has not killed all the opponent's pieces that can do damage . . .

-a player with no characters in gambit MUST ACTIVELY ENGAGE, or concede.
Exactly the same as it is currently
There will be no "hiding in the back" (that is already currently illegal stalling and a TO should be called.)
Exactly the same as it is currently

Functionally, the only games that will play on after 200, are games in which there is still time on the clock and both players feel they have a chance to finish destroying all the other players pieces.


If you "play fast and always finish your games by destroying all your opponents pieces" (or have all yours destroyed) - Great! nothing will change for you. So there should be no issue there.

There will be no "having to go root out commanders hiding in the back." By the current rules, they have to come out and fight or the player has to concede. This is a unfounded fear that already has a solution in place. Nothing will change in this regard.



There was also concern about how concessions would be treated. The answer is that nothing changes.

Concessions

Any player may concede at any time, and for any reason. If it is under 30 minutes into the match, a TO need not be called, the non-conceding player gets 3 tournament victory points automatically.
Exactly the same as it is currently
If a player would like to concede after the 30 minute mark, and the opponent has NOT reached 200, call a TO. They will award 2 or 3 tournament victory points, dependent on the state of the game.
Exactly the same as it is currently
If a player would like to concede at any time after their opponent reaches 200+ points, a TO need not be called, the non-conceding player gets 3 tournament victory points automatically if they have reached 200+ points.

I personally urge anyone to feel fine to concede if they are feeling overwhelmed, or like they don't have a chance. Sincerely. This is SWM, it's supposed to be fun. We don't want to prevent the scenario where both players feel like they still have a chance to destroy all their opponents pieces, but I would never take away someones right to back out if they feel the need to.
Exactly the same as it is currently

If someone feels that their opponent reaching 200 signals an end for them - they have full rights to concede. You would continue to have that right in every game. In other words, if you do that - you are playing like we always do, and that is any players right. In essence - nothing changes for those players

Calling a TO

Call a TO anytime for any reason. It's easy for the TO to pause their game if they are playing, and then go back. As is the case with the state of our game currently, a TO will be called over rarely. The singular change we are implementing will not increase that in any way, as there is no situation now that needs a TO call that couldn't have needed one before. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it won't happen at all. But I want to encourage anyone to do so if they are not sure about anything.
Exactly the same as it is currently



So - this was a whole lotta typing to hopefully make clear that only 1 very specific aspect would be pinpointed if implemented.

The only singular change is that players can battle it out to the end if they don't want to concede before time.

I real-life combat (say I knowing almost zero about this subject), sometimes holding a strategic position is more important than destroying an opponent outright. I've played a lot of Armada and they most often play only six rounds regardless of the state of the game (not sure why that is important other than I've been playing a bit of Armada). I always seek to win my game by wiping out my opponent, but it doesn't always happen, and sometimes I am concerned first with controlling gambit, before I fully focus on my opponent. In my Vassal World's games, I've finished 2 of my 6 games, but most of the other games have ended with a clear winner - just short on the amount of points needed.

We're running a League here at the moment and have only just started so I'm wondering about what we can do about this. Time isn't an issue as its spread across multiple nights, but I don't want everyone to suddenly get 3pt wins. Our first game (played between two of our less experienced players) was a 46-25 point game. No way I can award a 3pt win there. But the next game was 106-24. Clearer, but still not enough.

If engagement isn't happening, it's because both sides aren't engaging.

"I'm here - come into my death box!"

"No - come into MY death box."

Gambit is just a way to say who has to go into whose death box. If you're losing and they are in gambit, it's your job to go where they are. I have no problem saying that if your opponent gets to gambit first they can sit there and just be ready for you when you get there. That's as engaged as they need to be.

But once you get there, if you can kill them within the time limit you should be able to do so.

I think this proves that in some cases (at minimum) gambit literally allows for non-engagement.

Ironic

Well, yes, but this is a battle, not tag. Sure, this isn't scenario play. The object is to destroy the opposing squad, not hold a position. However, no sensible military unit would abandon good positioning and assault unfavorable odds out of sheer bloodlust, especially if the enemy has to come to you anyways.

So sure, it allows one player to camp in place, but it darn well forces the other player to come get them. And the gambit zone doesn't arbitrarily favor one player like an initiative roll might; if your opponent gets that deeply entrenched in gambit without you contesting it then either they paid for an expensive tech piece, or they're just playing better than you are.

Let's say we get rid of gambit altogether. You can still set up killboxes. The only thing different is that, if both players entrench, there's nothing to break the stalemate. A player with a lot of Forward Positioning or Battle Ready could theoretically set up a killbox on their opponent's side of the map, and then what? You can't get much more engaged than parking in your enemy's front lawn. Without gambit, how do we determine who is taking initiative to engage and who is not?

And all of this is ignoring the fact that maps are specifically allowed or disallowed into tournaments based on equity of terrain and gambit approach.

I don't think the existence of killboxes is relevant to the discussion. This game has line-of-sight weaponry, therefore positioning is important, therefore better positioning gives an advantage. Killboxes exist because this game has blasters. Without gambit, there is no way to decide who has the obligation to press forward.

We talk about wanting a fair game. Not sure what is more fair than each squad trying to reach 200 victory points (through killing opposing pieces or scoring gambit)? Each player knows exactly what they have to do. This has been the same for as long as I have been playing Star Wars Miniatures (2006 or 2007) as I did not play before there was organized play and gambit.

If you had to eliminate an opponents “entire” squad to win, while it sounds fair on the surface, it isn’t necessarily fair for a variety of reasons as there are plenty of squads and pieces that add extra characters to the board for one side or the other or cause characters to switch teams.

And I do not think that it is fair that player A may start with more than 200 pts in their squad (some not worth victory point) or be able to add characters to their squad later (again some may or may not be worth VPs) while Player B just has the normal 200 thus setting up a situation where in order to get a finished game under the new proposal, Player B might have to defeat 250+ pts of enemies, while Player A just has to defeat 200.

On a similar note, I am not entirely sure how I feel about someone scoring more points, yet losing the game. Possibly even more kill points (not just pts with gambit). Seems like the loser who outscored his opponent by 30,50,100pts whatever would be fairly upset that they lost, but I am still working through those situations and how I would feel, but lean towards being pretty upset if I scored significantly more pts than my opponent and lost, although this is technically possible in the current game in very rare situations, so rare in fact I don't think I have ever heard of it happening.

Ok, that concerns me. In my post I clearly articulated why I thought this would be a bad idea, but now you’re saying that very thing is essentially what you’re proposing. You say that there are mechanisms to deal with that; yes, I know: it involves calling a judge over. However, I’m convinced that any solution that requires a judge being called (in this case to counter an opponent’s combat avoidance/stalling) is inherently untenable over the long haul. Nobody wants to be “that guy” who is calling someone out for stalling. And nobody wants to have to explain things to a judge in the middle of a game. Furthermore, a judge is only going to make a ruling when there’s an obvious violation of the rules...we all know there is plenty of room for subtle and not-quite-but-almost-stalling tactics. I’m not interested in playing a game like that. Sports analogy: it’s always a sad thing when the referee decides the outcome of a game...when he needs to it’s because the game got out of hand, and when he doesn’t need to but still decides the outcome (by a bad call), that’s rotten for both teams. It’s better to just let the players decide the result.

I want to just be able to play the game and enjoy it. If my opponent won’t engage in combat with me while I’m in gambit, then I’ll win. It’s not nearly as fun that way, but I can’t control how my opponent chooses to play his squad. Regardless, if he’s going to avoid gambit then I’ll just win more quickly. If he still has attackers left on the board when I reach 200, then too bad for him...he should’ve engaged in combat earlier. If I get to gambit early and build a points lead, then it’s up to my opponent to catch up, and do it quickly.


The other main objection that I think is on my mind basically revolves around this: I don’t see the benefits. I do see some potential problems, and a lot of hassle in implementation (because there are always hiccups along the way). The only situation I can envision where this makes a difference is where one player has been slower to engage than the other player, and that slower player wants more of a chance to catch up. Sorry, but in that case the player should’ve been more aggressive, rather than holding back and allowing his opponent to get a significant gambit lead.

I think I much prefer the other suggestion you made, about how gambit points could only be scored if one player is not in gambit. That encourages combat (get to gambit!) while preventing the stockpiling of 50+ pts by both players while their squads duke it out over the course of a few rounds.

Fair point. 200 kill points (not counting gambit points) should in fact trigger the end of the game, even if both sides still have combatants. I hadn't thought of Reserves, and Reinforcements/Rakghouls explicitly say you don't have to kill them to win the game.

It feels like I wasn't clear in my response based on this.

My point was that it would be no different than it is now. Judges are infrequently needed now, and that would stay the same. In the fear you posted, why do you think it would suddenly change? What would be different that would convince a player who normally engages fully into an illegal staller? I just don't see that happening personally. If we had people like that, we'd already see it. Since we don't, we won't see it with this tweak either. I think your fear is entirely unfounded.




me too. It's only now becoming clear how varying peoples definitions are of that.


What it has often become is not a skirmish based on combat, but a race to 200pts, with 1/4-1/2 of those points not based on combat at all. I'm not really interested in "how fast can I get there".

To me, faster does not equal better. In fact, it often makes it much less enjoyable.

This community likes to speed shame. Tell you it's your fault if you're not fast enough.

There is a time limit. You should be able to apply your tactics to be able to finish off your opponents pieces in that time limit, but you should not be artificially rewarded simply for speeding.

Good question; I've bolded your question for easy reference. I think this question is valuable because I think it helps us press into the issue at hand.

Here's what I think would change:
If I've hypothetically already earned 200pts (and will therefore have the Win after time is called) and we continue the match, then the game would no longer primarily be a challenge of, "How can I defeat my opponent's squad/attackers," but rather, "How can I keep my squad/attackers from being defeated?" That is, while I will obviously win if I can defeat my opponent's last attackers, I will also win if I can evade and survive. So then it becomes a question of which path is less risky. Therefore, the most reliable path to victory in this situation will often (or at least sometimes) be evasion, rather than engagement. Why engage when avoidance is less risky?

Yes, you could say that the win condition was always to defeat your opponent's squad. And I agree. But the win condition is also to get to 200pts, which (in our hypothetical scenario) I've already accomplished. Therefore, once I've made it to 200pts, I no longer need to commit myself to the risk of combat/offense, but can instead go into protection/defense mode, because survival is my main goal. Obviously, if I can defeat my opponent's last attackers with relative safety then I will try to do that...but there's no way I'll take unnecessary risks. Therefore, avoidance/evasion will become a very viable--and perhaps even optimal--strategy for the player who has reached 200pts. Yes, the game will continue, and the (currently) losing player will still have a chance to make a comeback. But the game (and therefore the goals and tactics) will have changed.

In fact, it's possible that if things are really close, and if it's an important game, then who knows how much I might kinda-but-not-really stretch the boundaries of stalling/avoidance? Are we going to have a judge watching the last 20 minutes of our match just to make sure that I don't do that? Now, all of this is hypothetical. And I don't think any of us would [want to] do that, and I think the community would actively discourage such tactics. Yes, moreso than ever before, this game has become more casual than cutthroat. However--and here's the point I'm trying to make--the door would be open for that. And personally, I'd prefer that door to stay closed. The rules of the game set the context in which the game is played; therefore, rules which encourage the use of avoidance tactics will create a situation in which avoidance is sometimes practiced, even if it's 'naughty' or 'not what any of us would do.'

Another way to get at it: I'd rather play a game that rewards early risk and punishes early avoidance, than the opposite (a game that rewards early avoidance and punishes early risk). More specifically (and this might be specific to only me), I don't want to go back to where we were several years ago, when stalling and avoidance were common.


That brings me to the rest of your comment:

I wouldn't call it speed-shaming, as much as avoidance-shaming. And even then, I don't think shame is really the word for it; I prefer to think of it as rewarding competent play. It used to be that if you played slowly, you hurt your opponent's results. Now (with 200-or-2 and with the 3-2-1 system), if you play slowly you hurt your own results more than anyone's.

Nevertheless, I think I hear what you're saying: there is significant pressure--perhaps from people but certainly from the tournament structure--to play quickly and to engage in actual combat. People who can't (or perhaps won't?) play quickly will not fare as well in tournament play.

My question is, How and why did the community get to that point? I remember it very clearly: stalling and avoidance were common. So eventually the community recognized it for what it was, realized that it was siphoning joy from the game, and decided to do something about it. People were sick of losing because their opponent sniped their Lobot and then locked a door or kited them for the rest of the game. Some players were annoyed at only finishing 3-4 rounds over the course of an hour. And so yes, we did something about it. In hindsight, I think that was probably a good thing.