The purpose of this thread is to create a list of potential discussion topics for the 2021 season.
Please make a single post for each 1 topic you would like discussed by the BC.
You may include a brief paragraph synopsis and related links to discussion threads.

This thread is not for discussion or debate over those topics or the Balance Committee itself.
If you are wanting to have a conversation go to a related thread or create a new one.

Please do not repost topics that are already listed or request ones be removed from the list.
The BC will decide which topics are worth discussion by reading threads, taking polls, and reaching out to the community.
Topics are not guaranteed to make the final cut of BC discussion items just because they were listed here in this thread.

List closes December 31st, 2020.

Proposed Topics
Antares Draco?
Games ending at 200 while an opponent has a significant presence on the board.

My wife doesn't understand why I'm laughing.

Games should not end before time if players have pieces that can cause damage left on the board.

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.

http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29906

[This comment of mine is in response to the same concern that Tim raised in his post (above, in this thread) about games ending too soon. My comments were originally a response in the thread that Tim started about it, but I've shortened them for the purposes of this thread; please read that thread for fuller context.]

--It is currently very possible for a game to conclude (by a player reaching 200pts) where the winning player has not defeated all of his opponent's attackers. This is not preferable.

--Gambit should only matter if 1 player is engaging (ie, in gambit) while the other player is not. The whole purpose of gambit is to force engagement, but if both players are already engaging, then gambit's goal has been achieved and so it doesn't need to be applied. [Think of gambit like a referee in a sporting competition: a referee should only need to interfere if the rules are infringed upon, and not otherwise.]

Therefore, here is my suggestion:

A player only scores gambit points at the end of a Round if he has a qualifying piece in gambit and his opponent does not. Neither player scores gambit points at the end of a Round if (1) neither player has a qualifying piece in gambit, or (2) both players have a qualifying piece in gambit.

Under this rule, if one player is in gambit and the other is not, the non-engaging player had better have something up his sleeve, because he's falling behind on points each round that he chooses not to engage. But as long as both players are in gambit at the end of each round, then the game CAN NOT finish before one player has defeated the attackers of his opponent, and that's simply because there aren't enough gambit points to fill the difference between the build total and the points already killed.