Well there are 2 ways of getting a full win
Get to the point level
10 rounds without any action

Unless the 10 round rule has changed too.
Dean any insight on that?

You just made my day.

As far as all the changes go: fantastic. Look, I'll have no problem giving my opponent a concession victory if time comes and I'm down to lobot and a gran and he's ripping me up with a boba. If I'm very clearly going to lose without my gran never being hit and critting for 5 straight turns, yeah I'm going to give my opponent full points. If I'm losing 75-30 at time, it would be going against the spirit of the rule to concede, so forget about it.

Gambit and maps? A+. Whoever came up with that gambit idea needs to get a medal. Solves a ton of problems.

ok so if the big worry is concessions there are couple of things we could do you guys tell me what you think.

You could go the route of judge approval but in most LGS that maybe a little hard to get the judge/owner over in a reasonable amount of time.


You could institute a rule/guideline call it the 100 rule.

If you score is within 50 of the point total say for example 200 so you are at least at 150 and you have at least a 50 point lead so the score would be something like this for exampls sake 165 to 109 then a concession is a full point win.

GIve me your thoughts on that.

I must admit I have not given much thought to someone abusing the concession rule. I generally understand people can be rather nasty but I sometimes have a huge difficulty seeing people letting that part out during a game.

Oh, people will do it. Judging many non-SWM events at cons and local venues has shown me that. The majority of people won't abuse the concession, but there are enough people that will. They are also apt to move figures around or stage them before calling a judge to allow the concession. The game the judge sees as a 172-38 game may really have been 129-106.

I do like the 100 rule. Doesn't penalize a person for the 'one or two games' that go to time that weren't really slow-play games and doesn't detract from the intention of playing to win.





That was hilarious!

Yep, and maybe something along those lines will need to be made "official" after we see how these new rules pan out. Maybe the simplest way to do that would be to require a judge's approval in order to have a conceded-victory count for 3 points. If the judge is called over and sees that Darth Bane has been disintegrated, then it's pretty clear that it's an honest concession and the victory is worth 3 points...otherwise a conceded victory would count for 2. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Hopefully collusion won't be a factor most of the time, and we'll never need to even go down this road.

EDIT: In response to Dean's post, I think maybe a "50-pt rule" might be helpful. However, I would tweak it to NOT include Gambit points. If Player A is up by 50 pts but 25 pts of those are gambit, I'd certainly not agree that the game is out of Player B's hand; he's down, but almost surely not out. But if Player A has killed 50 points more of his opponent's pieces, then I could see it being a genuine concession.

With a "hard" number to reach for concessions, is there a possibility the loser would manipulate that too? In other words, if the score is 151-99, killing an ugnaught would force the 2 pt win?

Now if the concession were early, say in the first 30 minutes of the round, I see no problem in awarding a full win. What would disallowing concessions in the last 15 minutes of the round do? I see very few people willing to manipulate the outcome after 44 minutes of play, a lot could happen in 16 minutes, or even expand it to the last 30 minutes to alleviate nearly all doubt.

Honestly, without a judge standing over every table, there is always the risk of some collusion on the scorecard. What actions mitigate this risk the most significantly?

I think that banning concessions after the first half of each round, and awarding a full win for any concessions before that may be the best way to avoid any collusion?? Any attempt by the losing player to stall at that point may be far easier to identify, as any player that suspects it could occur can easily call a judge at that point.

So for instance, at the 30 minute mark, Player A calls me over as he suspects Player B may stall. I record the current score and round on the back of their score card. In the event the game goes to time, I have a solid basis for my decision. One way I can see this being manipulated is that Player A has the lead, call the judge over, and then slow plays himself. At that point, I have to rely on Player B calling me back over. I would hope that this particular instance would be limited, or do you see it being an even bigger problem?

I guess in the end it comes down to the judges decisions here. I'm not sure any of the solutions will fully cover the possible abuses. I think perhaps reminding players that any falsification of tournament results is an automatic DQ for both players from the event or something like that is perhaps best.

When I judged a large event at Racine this last year, as the sole judge, I could easily tell which games were going to time and which were close to finishing as I walked around. I understand the issue of a local store that doesn't have a real judge, but I'm just not sure absent of a real judge, there is much that can be done anyway.

I think perhaps just referencing that colluding is cheating in the Floor Rules would be enough to deal with those of us who might be tempted to do so otherwise, and for those who will cheat regardless, that's on the judge to deal with anyways.

I'm confused. Can you help me understand how if the first tie-breaker is most wins but some examples show the potential of a 5-2 placing ahead of a 7-0 or 6-1? Is # of wins complete games or combined complete and timed wins?

if i'm not mistaken the points come 1st then its onto the tie breakers.

I'm not sure though.

About concessions, i believe they will be a minor issue for the most part but i would like to further stress my MAIN point earlier.

I believe lockout wins to be against the spirit of the game (which these rules seem to try and point the competitive game in the direction of this spirit) and should be 2 point wins automatically.

Who's with me?

"chaaaaaarrrrgge!!!!!"

The order to determine placement is as follows (I believe).
1. Total Points Obtained - this is the total of your points earned via wins of both 2pt and 3 pt varieties.
2. Total Wins - this is straight wins and loses. (Currently this is the same as number 1 because all wins are 3pts.)
3. OWP (Opponents Win Percentage or Strength of Schedule as we often call it) (This is currently number 2 on the list).
4. Head to Head
5. OOWP (Your opponents' opponents win percentage)
6. Random

An extreme example can show you how a slow player could actually lose to a fast player with a lesser record.
A 7-0 slow player, who played all 7 games to time would earn only 14pts. A 5-2 Fast player who won all 5 games via completion, could score 15pts. 15>14, so the 5-2 places ahead of the 7-0. If the 7-0 player wins just one of his games by completition (still playing darn slow since he/she didn't finish the other 6 games), the scores would be 15-15, and would go to number 2. Since 7>5, the 7-0 player wins. And so on.

As for Lockout wins, I'm with you Deri. But if the person can gain the victory total via a lockout under 10 rounds and under the time limit, I think we just have to allow that one. Otherwise, it will be a 2pt win, and I believe this adequately covers something like 95% of all lock out wins (percentage was made up right on the spot)

Just to be clear here.

1. A win reaching final build total or more at the end of the round within time = full win regardless of manner.

2. a 10 round of no action goes to the scorecards and results as a full win. (according to johnny)

3. a consession win where an opponent wins due to player surrender = full win regardless of points allocated (judges discresion is advised)

4..a timed victory resulting in a points win (not reaching the points total) is considered a 2 point win.

have i missed something?

Yes correct.

I don't think that's correct.

yep, as it stands right now.

correct. This also includes any of the tie breakers after points as well, just to be clear - even if that is obvious.

Well when does the 10 round rule come in to play then? If there are 10 rounds with no action(attacks or damage) the person closest to the center wins. So what happens if the 10 rounds happen before time? is it only 2 points or 3 points?
Under the floor rules we have now(from July)

A match ends when
1 a player meets the victory condition or
2 the match time limit runs out,or
3. no side takes damage,makes an attack roll or makes a saving throw for 10 complete rounds

If a Match ends before a player meets the victory condition,players complete the current
round. At the end of the round,the player who sored the most victory points is the winner.
If both players have an equal number of victory points,the following tiebreakers are used:
1. The player whose model is closest to the center of the terrain map wins the match.
2. If more than one model is equally close,the player that owns the highest-cost model
closest to the center wins the match.


So where does number three fit in all of this?

The match ends same as it always have. However, neither player has reached the victory condition so a 2pt win is awarded. As to the bolded section, Jonny, what are you talking about? That's never been a rule lol. Currently, when the 10 rounds of no action are obtained, the game ends and goes to tie breakers. Points is the first tie breaker. If the victory condition is not met at that time, then its a 2 pt win.

I'd say that should clearly fall into the 2 point realm. It isn't a complete game in the same sense one that goes to time isn't a complete game.

Actually, I don't think it will be thought of that way. I think it will go more like this: "GG. You got me beat. Boy, I'd sure hate to rob you of that extra point even because I was playing kinda slow too. I'l just concde right now so you get the full 3 points." Nothing nasty about it, and from the mindset of slow play being acceptable we have now, no guilt that they're abusing the system, just like now.

Hm. Other ideas... perhaps time related? Concessions in the last few minutes aren't really gaining either player any time so maybe concessions in the last 15 minutes are worth 2 barring judges discretion. So if you can't get a judge easily at your venue, just play out that last few minutes. Really, I think the local venue isn't the real issue. People tend to work so much stuff out common sense wise and the abuse rules just must cater to the few bad apples, and the stringent major tourneys.

I think that is pretty dumb so I kill the whole squad but Kyle BM and have 2 rounds of gambit in 50 mins and I lock him out. If my opponent doesnt spin his figures within 10 mins in 9 rounds I will only get 2 points. He only has one figure left?

I understand what NickName is getting at here though. It's a tough call to make, but honestly, I think it just requires a judges discretion. In a tournament, if you bring a squad without any door control, or you manage to lose it all early enough in the game that you get locked out....well, that's your own fault, and IMO, you deserve to lose, and your opponent deserves the full 3 point win. He may not have defeated every piece on your squad, but he certainly defeated your squad, by effectively eliminating any potential for them to do harm to his own squad. I realize there's a cheese factor to that, but I honestly have no sympathy for people who come to a tournament without any form of door control, especially if it's GenCon. Or, if you play poorly enough to lose all your door control against someone who has Override, then again, that's showing which player has the higher skill level (yes, sometimes, higher luck factor, but the good players will accept those risks and mitigate them as much as they can). So, I'm not really sure that lock-out wins need their own line-item in the rules.

I would however add in something regarding concessions. I like the idea that it has to be approved by the judge. Of course, it really doesn't matter what the rules say, some people will always abuse the system to their advantage or their friends advantages, so no amount of rules will fully protect us. That's why we have judges.

A judge may make quite a few enemies if BOTH players in a match are willing to be friendly and concede, yet the judge calls it a 2pt win because it was only a 60-40 score. However, even if this does make some enemies early on, I think it would have the desired effect of people realizing that the judge is serious about people finishing their games, and thus may encourage people to play faster in coming games.

Overall, love the map and gambit stuff. I'm interested to see exactly how Dean plans to word the Gambit changes, but I like the sound of things that Ugs/Mice/Grans won't count for gambit at all. That's awesome. Should help drive down some of the beastly activation armies, will make Mouse Droids less desirable (most people will only need 2-3 total, even in Droid armies). Should be fun to see what 5pt figures come out of the EBoD to see some play-time just as gambit getters. I do, however, forsee some frustrations with Caamasi in Gambit, but I think there's enough limitations on the Diplomat ability that it shouldn't be abusive.

Did I read correctly above that there's going to be a recommendation to have a brand new map for the Championships next year? Yes please! That sounds like fun.


And finally....I somewhat hesitate to even further this part of the topic, but I feel it needs to be said, and the other side of the coin needs to be shown as well. Tempo control. IMO, anyone blaming their slow play on tempo control is simply just not playing their squads correctly. If your opponent is playing tempo control, and they have 12 activations, it should take them the exact same amount of time to play those 12 activations as if they didn't have tempo control. Furthermore, I would argue that it should take LESS time. 99% of the time I play tempo control, I use enough activations so that while my opponent activates his whole squad, I've done nothing more than "Touch Dodonna, Touch Rieekan, reposition Obi-FG, Touch Ugo, Touch Ugo, etc." All moves that should take no more than 5 seconds in most cases. And then when my opponent is done with all their moves, it does not mean I can take all the time I want to move my big hitters. It means that it should have taken absolutely no time whatsoever to think about "touch Dodonna", and instead, I should've been using all that time to plan my moves for my big characters. So, it should take LESS TIME at that point to move my big pieces.

So, I will reiterate. If your opponent is using tempo control and they are playing too slow (use the 10 minutes per round guideline if you have to), then it's simply a situation that they don't know how to play their squad properly yet. That is slow play, and you should call a judge over. There's no reason to rid the game of tempo control. I agree, it's annoying to play against. But it just means we have to learn our squads and tactics better. Don't blame the piece. It's the player's fault, not the piece.

Sorry. /rant

Ah, that explains it. When you said first tie-breaker, I had #1 and #2 mixed up in my head. Thanks for clarifying that.

What!? My last name that starts with "A" no longer counts? What an outrage!


Some interesting results under this system:

place complete timed loss points wins losses
1 7 0 0 21 7 0
2 6 1 0 20 7 0
3 5 2 0 19 7 0
4 4 3 0 18 7 0
5 6 0 1 18 6 1
6 3 4 0 17 7 0
7 5 1 1 17 6 1
8 2 5 0 16 7 0
9 4 2 1 16 6 1
10 1 6 0 15 7 0
11 3 3 1 15 6 1
12 5 0 2 15 5 2
13 0 7 0 14 7 0
14 4 1 2 14 5 2
15 3 2 2 13 5 2
16 4 0 3 12 4 3
17 3 1 3 11 4 3
18 3 0 4 9 3 4


At first look, I don't like the 6-1 and 5-2 players ahead of a 7-0 player. But upon further review, I like it. It supports the intention of a "skirmish" game, not a run-and-hide game. And reminds me of my younger son being upset after losing a game at the Racine Invitational to a player who won by the rules and points but wouldn't fight at the end to determine a winner.

Good modification, guys.


Gambit only being able to be earned by real-point figures is a very good idea. Kudos. Limits the abuse of the gambit rules but doesn't hose the activation control teams.
Gambit only being able to be earned by 5+ point figures is understandable but overkill. Jeopardizing 5 points to earn 5 makes sense. But putting a figure out there doesn't guarantee points every round. (Well, it may in the hands of a good player.) Or even that round. I think if you've put real points at risk, even if they are 3 or 4, they should be able to earn gambit. Plus that keeps the exception of Rapport from making things confusing.

Maps being so limited is disappointing, but again understandable. I like playing on a variety of maps. But I really like balancing shooters-vs-melee. And the maps out there (while great for fun games, scenarios, league play, etc) don't favor a balance. [And certainly no offense to Mapmaker who's done a great job with the maps. I like them. But I think LFL or WotC has not let him keep that balance.]

I like the Mystery Map tourney idea. Keeps the skill of the player to the game being played, not the combination of squad paired to a map.

Very apt for competitive play and a major difference from casual or fun play. I'd rather see more variety in team builds than door control / # of activations / big shooter. But that's why I play more casual games than competitive and play with all my figures. Well, maybe not a few horrible pieces. Lock out is, in my view, a win by the rules and not finishing the skirmish; thus it should be worth only 2 points.