Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Honestly I think Gambit is the problem. The concept of how to win the game is self-defeating. Here's a hypothetical conversation:
Player: So how do I win this game?
Judge: You have to defeat all your opponent's pieces.
Player: What if I can't get to their pieces, like if they lock themselves in a room?
Judge: If that happens, then after X number of rounds without any action taking place, you just add up the points.
Player: And what happens if there is one significant action every 4 rounds.
Judge: Well, there's a time limit.
Player: So I can just get the points lead by killing one piece before time runs out and win rather than fight my full squad versus theirs?
Judge: Well you can, but players can also get points by standing in any of the four squares surrounding the center of the map.
Player: Well I brought a shooter squad, so why would I station my pieces so close to the action?
Judge: Ummm... to score points. To, you know, win.
Player: What if they wait to the last minute to rush one of my higher cost pieces to overtake my lead?
Judge: Ummm.... then they win, but they score less tournament victory points.
Player: So I played the whole game and through no fault of my own, I still lose. And my only option is to place myself in a strategically disadvantaged position and hope they miss all their attacks?
Judge: Ummm... yes, that is correct.
In an ironic twist, WotC once published an article explaining why maps with center chokepoints are bad for a miniatures game. And yet, it is the entire focus of tournament-level play for SWM.
You've started this hypothetical conversation with the wrong victory condition
it should go
Player - how do i win this game
Judge - you score more victory points than the opponent
Player - how do i do that?
Judge - you gain points for defeating the opponents pieces or controlling the center area, once you meet the build total the game ends after that round and you compare scores.
etc, etc.
There are fundemental problems with this game as a competitve tounament game in that one of the most powerful tools is the ability to manipulate doors to avoid detrimental conflict.
Its been known since rebel storm and its strength has been allowed to perpetuate.
Gambit was brought in in order to solve this issue, but it wasn't a solution it just moved things sideways.
The 3 point victory conditions are an improvement as now you are more inclined to choose squads that kill 'em all but it doesn't stop the fact that games with high activations and large amounts of override take longer than an hour. See the championship last year as a result. No suprise that a high activation, override squad won out over the many teams that were designed to kill quickly. Not that Daniel didn't finish some games but i think it was about 3-4 out of 9 that went to time.
When designing this game WotC wanted it to be a quick simple game but they introduced a powerful tactic that actually slowed the game down and prevented conflict. Making override so powerful was a basic error IMO. Tim and I realised it immedeately and its impact is still being felt.
They then introduced a 2nd tactic that slowed the game down even more by messing with the fundemental property of 2 activations per phase. That combined with override perpetuated this.
However, everything comes back to override. Override is the mistake as it prevents combat in a combat oriented game.
You can institute rules and formats to alter a persons intent but the fact of the matter is these things exist because the fundemental gameplay allows it.
If i'm sitting in gambit, gaining points and preventing you gain any, even without combat i'm within my rights, arn't I?
You make a ruling anyother way and your now being subjective, and that really isn't a good way to institute a rule set.