Show me my sweeping generalizations!? I said what I felt. Both of my posts on this topic were addressed completely as feelings. I pass nothing off as 'fact' other then the need for DCI to have a method to force engagement.

You state I make sweeping statements then you make this one!? 1/100 games gambit fails to force engagement...


I don't consider swapping fodder in the middle actual engagement. It is more of a skirmish of the battle (the series of feints, advances, defeats, and withdrawals of non essential forces can't really be called a battle, now can it?).


My counter to this is the following: With more ways to earn points and thus win the game outside of combat (through gambit and the tie breakers), the importance of defeating the enemy lessens. If the importance of defeating the enemy lessens, then I can make a conclusion that gambit does not force engagement but offers a way out of it.

@emr,
What other ways are there to win games? That's ridiculous. The only way to win is through points and you can get points from Gambit.

If my opponent can get points and I can't I have to figure out a way to get those points. Well I can't catch up on Gambit so I have to kill my opponents pieces. That's engagement.

It's utterly ridiculous to think that gambit doesnt force engagement.

Mustafar doesn't force engagement because its an awful map, its Gambit that people rely on to win on that map. Unless set up is completely wrong by one opponent.

Bill's 15-5 win or whatever is evidence of that.

@Bill,
You're right. Sometimes Gambit isnt' enough to force engagement. You'll give up more points that Gambit is worth or force yourself in a bad position. That costs you points. But it's not the fact that Gambit isn't forcing engagement. That's the map you're on and what you're matched up against. Not Gambit.

It's really simple. As long as Gambit is the only thing outside of defeating pieces that provides points it will be an incentive to engage. Otherwise you lose, that simple.

I dont think its general at all bill, no more so than anything you've said.

Maybe another way to think about it is that some games have "anti-engagement," meaning that neither player is willing to risk going for gambit because it sets their opponent up for some easy points via kills.

True, but that really has nothing to do with gambit. If two players are so worried about losing a piece that they're unwilling to even risk engagement by going for gambit they'd have even less incentive to engage without it.

Yep, thats the point I was going for, well said Dennis.

It the exception that proves the rule in reality. Gambit doesn't solve all issues, but the game is assuredly better with it in place.