Time to re-approach the topic. Hopefully people have settled down a bit and can look at this with a clear head.


Here is what I (and many others) think the game should be - as boiled down to the basics as possible.

The game does not end before time UNLESS
1. A player concedes.
2. A player has no pieces that can cause damage left on the board.


That's it. It's really simple. It's how the game was always meant to be played, but somehow along the way got warped.

I don't think any other changes are necessary. Play the games out.


If you win the game and reach 200pts (including gambit), you will get your 3 tournament points. BUT - the game won't stop until time, concession, or one player has no pieces left that can cause damage.



I think people were really overcomplicating it before and it became a mess. It's simple, straightforward and has a lot of support.

Very good question - because it's surprisingly nonsensical that a game should finish for any other reason.

There is a goofy loophole that is being expoited.

Currently - the game ends at the end of the round after time finishes or a player reaches 200pts - whichever comes first.

The issue is that many games are finishing before time based on gambit.

Example -
Player A has 4 rounds of gambit and 166 kill points, but only has Lobot (27pts) and 2 ugnaughts (3pts each) left on the board.(33 points left on the board)
Player B has 3 rounds of gambit and 167 kill points, but has Dash Rendar Renegade Smuggler left on the board (28pts) and 2 ugnaughts (3pts each) left. (34 pts left on the board.)
20 minutes left in the game. Score (including gambit Player A - 206, Player B - 197)

Player A has reached 200 or more points (player B has not). Currently - At the end of the round where Player A reaches 200pts, the game would end, with Player A as the winner - despite the fact that there is time on the clock and pieces left on the board.

In this illustration - clearly Player B is in the better position to win if the game continues, but Player A would win under current rules due to the fact that they raced to gambit first. In some maps - many teams cannot even get to gambit in round 1, which compounds the unfairness.


We think that gambit has it's place and purpose - but should not decide when games end in this matter.



Again - 3 reasons a game should end:
-Time
-Concession
-No pieces left that can cause damage.

Not a bunch of gambit points with damaging pieces left on both sides before time.

What is the current scoring formula?

Why use 10 pt gambit then?
(I’m sure that involves a slight history lesson...)

5 point gambit came into play when 100 and 150 were the main formats. Once 200 became the standard, it did make sense that gambit became 10 points, but it has become abused.

There has been much discussion on changing gambit, with strong feelings in both sides. I’m fine leaving gambit as is, as long as the loophole being discussed is closed.

We also talked about changes in the tournament scoring system, again strong feelings on both sides.

I really honestly think that we’ve pinpointed the main issue. Changing this really only closes the loophole being abused. Other changes (gambit, tournament scoring system) could have other effects. Changing this would only have the effect of letting games play out - nothing else changes.

I'm happy to advocate for change, but have a few questions.

In the above lobot/dash scenario, you are saying the game should continue on even though scores exceed 200 pts unless one okayed quits or has no attackers, right?

What happens if player B (dash) kills all of player A's (lobot) pieces before time, but player A still has the higher score due to more gambit scoring?

Also, the original end game rule of 100/150/200 pts was because that was the agreed upon squad totals for the game...correct?
Gambit was not factored in until much later, which altered that original goal for the total points.

When we played tournaments, way back in the day, we always played until time or assured defeat. Not to the points total. I guess we were "rebels" when it came to that rule.

To be honest, most games were decided by time in our group...and there were a few where if it went one more round, the end result would have been drastically different and the other player would have won. Those always felt like dirty wins, but it was the rule non-the-less...and yes, it made us want to play faster. (note: it wasn't from one person intentionally stalling)

IIRC, Gambit became a thing around the time of CotF, when the game scene shifted from 100 to 150 points.

it's been discussed. Lots of trepidation on side effects of changing the tournament scoring system.

What I am proposing in this thread is a very small change that won't effect how gambit is scored or how tournaments are scored. Only when a game ends.

Really the only people against this will be the ones abusing the loophole.

A possible drawback to the change is the incentive for intentional slow play. If I'm ahead and already have 200pts, then I'm going to win (3pts) as long as I stay ahead. If the opponent has the advantage on the board, then I'm better off playing slow so that we get in fewer rounds and I stay ahead. Yes, "slow play" like that is against the rules, but it's hard to enforce, especially in a Vassal format where there's usually no judge immediately available.

With the current rules, slow play like that to gain an advantage could still happen, but usually people are encouraged to play more quickly to race to either 200 or 100pts (depending on their position in the game). And once you reach 200 the game ends. If the game doesn't end but I already have 200pts, then what incentive do I have to keep trying for kills? I just need to run away and play slowly. Only kill the opponent if I can't get away fast enough.

I don't know if that would be a problem in practice, but maybe.