Yep... the broken record issue with me and DCI is the idea that one can logistically not engage the enemy and stall their way to victory through use of Gambit.

So, I was thinking of ways to combat this. It has been suggested that using a chess clock could solve it but I don't think it is logical. So here is my latest idea (which could have been stolen from others, I know we at our LGS talked about it at length and this seemed best).

3 points for winning a match that does not go to time (earned enough points through defeats and gambit).
2 points for winning a match that must use tie breakers.
1 point for loss.

However, what happens when you have little hope to win, maybe you want to short the opponent on points to screw him in your vindictive behavior (surely I would do that if I were losing to say BGartz29!!!).

so a modification:

3 points for winning a match if the opponent loses at least 50% of the build total by the end of the game (the opponent must lose 75 points of their 150 point build for you to earn 3 points)
2 points for winning a match if the opponent still has over 50% of their build total undefeated.
1 point for loss.

Now, all you have to do is kill at least half the army before time runs out, or you suffer the consequences for not battling.

What do you all think?

First thought is I prefer the second option over the first, for precisely the reason you mentioned. The second issue I have been having lately - as much on Vassal than anything - is the incredibly deliberate/slow play of opponents against me. Its partly name related - people want to play their best or are afraid to make mistakes against me because I am billiv15, but it has gotten me thinking about this as well. I kinda like this idea at first glance though - but I have some concern I might always end up with a 2pt win thanks to my opponents deliberate play against me I will think more about it and get back to ya.

I don't think a Chess Clock is all that outlandish. There are not a whole lot of decisions that take place outside of your turn. Sure, there are a few force powers that need to be used (especially if a yoda is involved) but for the most part those should not take a lot of time to discuss.

I would absolutely love to see a chess clock implemented in Vassal to at least give it a try. I feel that vassal players are just slower because instead of a social game (in person), its a puzzle game much like Freecell. Having someone across the table staring at you DOES move things along much faster.

I totally agree that winning with only gambit doesn't feel right, but hopefully new figs or squads will reveal themselves that could hinder that type of play. Imagine a power like "Force Hibernation - skip this character's activation until the end of the round" or something that prevents a San/Ozzel player having the last say.

I'm not really sure that Option 2 is really that much better. A vindictive (or just plain manipulative) player could still abuse that system. I'm thinking (and I'm sure Bill is as well) in terms of Bill's game against WedgeIkari at the GenCon championship which was the 15-5 win by gambit points. From what I understand of that game, one player began the process of non-engagement, to which the other player, smartly, said, well, I'm not going to just put myself out there to get shot. So, in that case, neither player was necessarily stalling. I've had games where I don't think the person was stalling in order to win, but neither of us managed to kill 75 points worth of pieces before time ran out either. So, I think the points thing you've suggest, while a good idea in theory, just doesn't really seem fair across the board. Especially since there's a lot of games that I win at my LGS that I don't kill 50% of the opponent's pieces, but it's because of their slow play, not mine at all. That penalizes me...for winning!

I know exactly what you're getting at, but what I learned from helping my friend James to become a faster player, is that the opponent's slow play can be used as a weapon against them as much as they might be trying to use it against you. The slower they play, the more time you have to analyze all their possible moves, and to know exactly what you want to do in response to them. So when they finally make a move, you move immediately in response and your turn is over in 60 seconds. This puts a lot of psychological pressure on the opponent, makes you look extremely confidant in their eyes, and likely makes them believe they made a bad move since you were so quick to make your own move. Eventually, forcing them to take their turns so close together, they will make mistakes.

Pretty much 100% of the time now, when I play against James, if he's playing slow at all, I know I have him beat already.

San's greatest weapon right there.

I like the idea of a game clock. It is all we really need. The more you make the game about points outside of playing, the more you will actually take away from playing the game.

I like what you are getting at, i just dont like what it does. A few weeks ago i had a game against ILS that i won 45-30 in all gambit. I never took a single attack. Neither one of us was stalling, but the squads we were running dictated it. If i stuck my neck out i was going to lose, no question. I danced back and forth to keep him honest, but i never had a chance where i could charge out and attack without losing my pieces. Some matches are just going to be like that. So long as no one is stalling, i dont care if it goes to time and is determined by gambit.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that you cannot legislate morality. If someone wants to win by stalling, there is nothing you can do about it except charge them (even if it would cost you the game).

The question is, do you think the introduction of Gambit and timed wins through non-engagement was planned or is it an abuse of the DCI rules? I think it is an abuse, and would like nothing better then seeing some solution to timed victories.

Not exactly sure what you're asking there. Are you wondering if the DCI folks foresaw the abuse of gambit + stalling when they designed the rules, and left it in there on purpose?

I mean, I think no matter what happens, you have to have a time limit. It's impossible to run large events any other way. Now, the problem with that becomes, if the time limit is the only thing you impose, you get people pulling the old "pop out, kill something, hide for the rest of the game" tricks. So, 'Gambit' is the counter to that strategy.

Now, just like with the miniatures game itself, something always rises to the top to be the meta/gatekeeper/etc. In this case, you're thinking it's the ability to abuse the Gambit system and stall for victory.

But honestly, there's only so much you can do about it. As Bill has pointed out in the past, even with the rule of "10 rounds of no engagement" you can work around that slightly, and still have a game that's won 15-5. So, do we change the # of rounds down to 5 instead? That still presents problems of non-engagement, as people can run around in circles for 5 rounds without too much trouble.

Honestly, I think the system is perfectly fine as it is, and as I've pointed out many times before, I honestly cannot think of a single game that I have lost because of my opponent stalling or just generally playing slow. Within the first 15-20 minutes of a game, it should be quite obvious what sort of pace your opponent is keeping. It's a matter of learning your own squad well enough that no matter what type of squad your opponent plays, you know the best strategies for winning before you even roll the first initiative.

So what if instead we simply use total points scored as a tiebreak for any such needs? It makes the emphasis lower, yet it absolutely puts you at a disadvantage if you generally win the low-scoring dance-games.

Well, that's they way we did tie-breakers at our LGS anytime we weren't using the DCI system, and I agree it seems to work better. It requires people to more carefully report though, and keep track of their points. Plus, that's just as much open to abuse. I can write down whatever point total I want, and if the opponent is just as unscrupulous as I am, they'll say OK (as I'm assuming this system would require both players to sign off on the report sheet for each match). Especially, say, if it's two friends playing against each other in the GenCon championship. If I'm going to lose anyways, may as well agree to pad the score of my friend (opponent) so that they have a better chance of placing higher due to higher number of 'kill points'.

IMO, that's more abuseable than our current system.


(NOTE: I'm not trying to be pessimistic or just shoot down any ideas that come up. I'm as open to change as anyone, but don't see the point of it, if it doesn't fully accomplish the mission. So, I'm playing devil's advocate here more than anything. Especially with Dean being the DCI rep now, we have a much better shot at actually affecting things like this, so these types of discussions are really fruitful, IMO.)

Hey, no worries Lobo... just because I'm a zealot about some things that I feel I have adequate facts on (Kazdan), I'm actually a pretty open to opinions on everything else

Exactly. I think with the introduction of gambit, it became instead of a shoot/scoot/and end game for the 3 point win to an abuse of the gambit to win.

Yes, I do think this. I think I can build squads that never intend to kill anything yet still win/tie by use of gambit alone. How should that even be a viable strategy. The game is about killing each other, it should not be about waiting out the clock.

Then what is your squad for accomplishing this feat? How do you propose to win by gambit/stalling?

I have posted it in the past, it has since changed.

It was Lobot, Jabba, Nute, Wat, 2 BD.

Nute brings in San. Jabba brings in one intermediate shooter if I need to kill something for a lead in points, everything else is BD's or Uggies. The idea is simple, run into gambit, stay in gambit. Kill one thing and stall stall stall. I don't think it would be hard to delay the game to just 4-5 rounds or shorter if need be and this is through just deliberate play. Pick a map with plenty of rooms and keep moving the 'point' pieces into safety and have fun with override to delay the chase.

With only one override piece, how the heck do you plan to keep the likes of Boba BH away from all of those pieces? You aren't going to be able to hide all of them.

Sure, it might be an annoying squad, buy any competent player should have no problem beating that.

It's as simple as, keep all your scrubs hidden somewhere, and only advance your beefy pieces into gambit. The Ugos/BDs should not be able to do enough damage to kill anything (especially not before they get killed themselves) and then when time is called, you'll likely lose because you will be tied in Gambit points, and not have the highest point cost character near the center.

San Hill: Boba BH and Aurra Sing JH would also have a field day with this. The 'shooter' that Jabba brings in will get toasted if they put themselves out anywhere to shoot things. Boba's Flamethrower and Aurra's Blaster Barrage will decimate whatever you put in the gambit zone.

Thrawn: Keep everything hidden, and then go for a long range Thrawn swap to chase down something for points. With only Lobot for Override, you won't likely be able to keep everything hidden. If you are able to keep everything hidden...see my thoughts above about killing everything in gambit and then having the highest point cost character in the middle.

Broken Boba: Boba's Flamethrower again will murder whatever you toss in the gambit zone. The 2 JWMs and R2 should have no trouble tracking down at least one of your counts-for-points characters

Force Repulse. Oh man...your gambit gainers would be screwed in this case.

So, I think that squad idea might have some limited strengths, and on the right map, with winning the correct side, AND the right match-up against your opponent, you might actually be able to pull it off. But I can't see it being viable enough to carry someone all the way through a tourney to the top. Perhaps I just need to see it play-tested.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I haven't really come up with anything that truly solves it.

The shortcoming of this proposal (as others have basically said) is that it still rewards winning passively over losing aggressively.

As soon as Bill and Wedge see that stalemate-type situation it's "well, I can't get 3 points so I'll play for 2" under the proposed system and the game plays out exactly like it did at Gencon 2007--and that's without any intentional stalling attempts.

The only thing we've done that's mostly worked well was VASSAL League Season 1 (which admittedly wasn't in a timed situation, but theoretically should play out about the same.) You didn't win or lose games, you simply got a score based on total kills. So it was better to lose 100-50 than win 20-10. At some point you just realize you have to go for as many points as you can get as fast as you can win or lose. Even that is open to abuse as someone described above, but ultimately if people are going in thinking about cheating, they'll find a way. And the system falls apart in single elimination.

For stalling, a chess clock is probably the only true solution, but it's completely impractical unfortunately, and probably undesirable when you get right down to it.

I doubt that there is ever a perfect solution - Any "system" proposed to be the most fair can be "played" in some way or another. Players are smart, and will play any system to their advantage. If we use points as tiebreakers, I don't think most people will outright cheat, but some will concede quickly(or at least, at a normal point) against people they don't know, and play it out till the last man quickly against their friends, potentially even intentially givving away a high point value piece when its obvious they cannot win.

I hope the game designers see the problems in the game and design pieces that have the potential to fight directly against that strategy. The MTB, for example, is really a great addition to the game because it makes Thrawn much less powerful simply by existing. That example doesn't apply to stalling, but I think some of the faster pieces are a move in the right direction. Exar Kun is usually a good counter option against some stalling strategies. More "fast" figs could mitigate that somewhat - although as more figs potentially can get in your face faster, it takes more time to account for what they can do. So maybe it doesn't even help... who knows?