From what I understand (although I don't have a view of the final document to speak of), that yes, effectively, if you kill your opponent's entire squad you win. I know for sure it covers situations like betrayals, and squads that have less than the point total to start with. I think Dean was going to even make it so that in these cases Gambit wouldn't necessarily matter, although like I said, I don't know if that made the final cut or not.

Either way, there won't be any losing 149-148 even though your opponent's entire squad is dead and time is called that round (assuming the 5pts of gambit would get you to the 148 total here).

ya, dis iz gut.

So, when a squad no-longer contains any pieces game ends immedeately with the squad that has a piece the winner? (it would need to be stated in a similar fashion so that betrayal works).

Great rule.

Nickname -

I understand what you are saying. But, our group plays DCI everyother week. That of course can change, and maybe needs to be something that I think about and talk over with the crew. However when they move from a casual player to playing DCI and find out items that they bought can't be used bums out a bunch of folks. Heck it even bums out the folks that have been playing for years.

Dennis -
I wish we would have been able to chat longer while I was in Owensboro about this type of stuff. If not Swiss pairing then what? Double elemenation tournaments? Not being a big gamer before playing SWM I am not sure what other styles of tournaments are out there. ANyone care to chime in on this?

Have been thinking about this whole 3 point issue and two point issue and "judges opinion". I see a lot of problems coming in when it is the "judges opinion" I tend to visit different venues or play against people that come from different venues and I think the judges opinion will very from place to place. I feel that the floor rules need to be clear in that you have to score the detirmined victory points, be it 100, 150, or 200, to get three points. Anything else gets two. It keeps things simple and consestant. Having played at two Gencons and judged a regional, I have seen peopel blow up over less. Just a thought.

part of me agrees with you Les but if we dont give the judges discretion (which they have always had) on these issues then it opens up the abuse area.

Will this system be perfect???? No. WIll it be better than current??? Sure


Remember there are tons of venues out there right now playing DCI format every week that dont know what gambit is or even know where to find the floor rules. Nothing done to the floor rules can save us from every problem. The question is are we getting them more in tune with where the state of the game is right now and is it going to improve the overall fairness of the game for everyone.

I wish there was a blanket fix that would take care of all issues. Understand most of the issues there are though exist because of the players not the rules. Because of this nothing is ever going to be perfect because someone always takes advantage of a situation.


By the yes killing your opponents entire squad is an autowin. I kind of had to redifne what a victory is.

Yeah. There's certainly something to this, and I sympathize. It would be great to allow every map to be legal. But by the same token, does that result in a game than anyone wants to play? It's hard to argue that it eliminates a huge chunk of minis that might otherwise be viable. So do you want the option to use more of your maps, or be reasonably competetive with a wider range of minis? My feeling is that more players will say more minis in an either/or situation. And then the next question is which do you want to be more important in determining the outcome of the game, winning the map roll or actually playing the game? I'm sure virtually everyone will say the latter.

Of course, there's some gray area in the assumptions there and how the questions are phrased which makes these decisions tough even when you have a pretty strong opinion about which path is better.

Proposing and justifying a map list was never an easy decision for me and I'm sure it's no easier for Dean.

Ultimately, the best solution I think is to give people more options and let the TO cater to his local crowd better within the framework of DCI but that isn't foolproof either. What if the venue you go to prefers to use all the maps and you prefer maybe the huge friendly maps only? So even options have their drawbacks.

Okay, well I never said I wasn't going to share it with anyone else. If that were the case, why would I bring it up for the entire HoF members to be aware of at all? And no, it wasn't because of some sinister ulterior motive, before we start down that line again.

Why the wait? Because I hadn't decided what my response would be to the messages being sent and I wasn't about to have it played out for public debate until I had made up my own mind. But I wanted people to be aware of it, as a courtesy and an invitation to be watching for possible future discussion. Yes, as a courtesy. My mistake for handling it that way, one I have been careful not to make again.



No Dean, I'm not upset about the phone call or how it went. You are right, I had an impatient wife trying to get me off the phone that night. But that isn't the issue here.

The issue here is that I made a comment that I don't agree that awarding fewer points to the winner of a game which goes to time because it - like most things about the Swiss system - allows a losing player to manipulate the overall outcome, and in stating so I reiterated my own belief that - as others have again pointed to since then - the way people play the game in accordance with Gambit has led us to this. Make points matter less, I said. It's not original, and it's not even my idea. But instead what I get is some sort of accusation that I am holding back some secret solution that has never been discussed. That is simply not true, and I think after all this time you should know me better than that.

In any case, a player who wins a game that goes to time gets 2 points instead of 3. Not sure what else I'm missing about this that would make me feel better about it as part of Swiss style play.

And no, it's not just a threat about DCI. In the last few months I've been going to the store less. I hate Swiss. I don't understand the decisions the program makes about rankings. They seem completely arbitrary and follow no specific pattern. Coolecticon was my first tournament in weeks. In Tile Wars I got paired down every round. Every round! The system arbitrarily put me out of contention, and I know I'm not the only one that happens to. I despise Swiss more and more because of things like that, even when I see them happen to other people.

Yes there are real life issues I'm dealing with, and they probably are influencing my behavior some. I apologize for that.

So to answer your question, no I do not have some amazing solution that I can spring on you or anyone else. You are aware of all of my ideas on how to fix the problem. It's about changing the mindset of people who want to win on points at the end of a specific amount of time into one that makes them want to win by defeating all of their opponents pieces as fast as possible, and while I appreciate the hard work you have put into finding a solution, I don't believe it accomplishes that particular goal.

That is just my opinion. As Nickname would say, "I don't need to have the last word. You can have it if you want."

I think I understand Dennis' concern here. In that a player who is playing slow, or someone who wants to intentionally abuse the system, can play slow and therefore impact the outcome.

Honestly though, I'm not really sure how this system could be THAT much worse than the current system. OK, so you have to play against a jerk who's abusing things at some point during the day. But that's one game. Bill has already shown how one game like that really won't affect you. Heck, even two games like that wouldn't matter in some cases.

Maybe your fears are based on some of the discussions we've had in the past regarding the way groups of players have rigged Magic tournaments in the past? Where a group of players all work together to 'cheat' the Swiss system in helping one of their buddies win the whole thing? While I understand that potential, I have YET to see that EVER happen in a SWM event. A nuclear bomb might fall on the convention center during the Championship too, but we don't need to write a line in the floor rules to deal with that. Yes, I know that's an extreme analogy, but I hope you at least understand where I'm going with that.

Dean makes an excellent point. Something has to be changed, and nothing we do will ever fix ALL the problems. Saying "well, I don't think this will fix it" is good and all, but if you don't have any better suggestions, continuing to say "I don't think this will fix it" doesn't really help at all. I'm pretty sure that Dean, and Bill, and myself, and several others, will all agree that this 2-3 point system will NOT fully fix things. But it does at least seem to us like a step in the right direction.


As for the different gambit zones on the maps....my understanding of the DDM game is such that it's much more based around melee attacks, or at least things with limited range, so it's much easier to have different victory areas, and get to those places without getting torn apart. There are DDM maps that have little to no walls or low cover. The game is fundamentally different in that regard, from what others have shown me. SWMs is too well-rooted in the non-melee aspect to have victory zones on the opposite side of the map from where you start. 90% of games, it's tough enough to get to the center and maintain a position there. How much harder would it be to cross over into the enemy territory instead? Yes, I'd love to see an alternative to gambit. I hate winning games 15-10, or heck, 40-20 or some such, simply because of gambit points. But I've yet to see any feasible changes that would actually make a difference.

Honestly, I'd rather see gambit eliminated all together rather than change the location/shape of the gambit zones. The primary reason gambit was introduced was to keep people from sniping a piece, then camping till time ran out. Well, the new 2-3 scoring rules would help prevent that to some degree. At least this way, if someone sniped a piece and got a small lead, then THAT would force engagement as the opponent would be forced to attack the opponent in order to get back ahead.

The problem there is stalemate situations. Neither player wants to be the one to put their figure in danger of being the one that gets sniped. And without some incentive to leave your safe starting area, then that's the ideal strategy--let the other guy leave his safe area. And as soon as you get two players like that: stalemate.

Gambit allows another option for breaking the stalemate and forcing one player into action. Until such time as you can't get it safely.

People developed squads using cheap/free figures and activation control to break the stalemate even on open-gambit maps. This forced the opponent to be the one who had to leave the safe starting area.

So in that respect, the change to gambit scoring will be a step toward stalemate situations rather than away from them. Assuming unsafe gambit maps. There is inherent risk now in putting a figure in gambit at all and so people will prefer their opponent be the one to take the risk, or varient strategies will resurface as gambit control gatekeepers. (Obvious ones... Cloak, Invisible, Act Control + Init Control)

Good points Jason and were right in line with my thinking.

That is why the new match win scoring system only works in conjunction with the new way gambit is scored. One thing alone is not enough. We need both to make it work.

It will not eliminate everything that can go wrong in a tourney but it does get better. We are declaring our tiebreakers which is another step in the right direction.

Do I think this is the end all be all???? No way. As the game grows the Floor rules willhave to change. It must be a living document and keep up with the game. After 3 years I think everyone can agree that a slow play mindset has become a problem. As Jason pointed out int he Universal Floor Rules games are meant to be played in timely manner consistent with finishing the game. So we must do some things to change that mindset. ARe these changes necessary???? Apparently so because after 3 years we as a community have identified a problem with how the game is going on the competitive level.

After thinking about it some more, I still do not think that it should be based on judges discretion as to whether or not to award 2 or 3 points in any game that is not completed for whatever reason. I think that as far as concessions go that if it occurs in the last 15 mins of a match then it should be a 2 pt win. This would take away any and all incentive to concede a match to for whatever reason with 3 mins left or whatever. This also would take care of all those concessions for real life reasons (ie phone call or some other emergency) that might occur in the beginning part of a match (unfortunately if it is the last 15 mins of a match then still only 2 pts).

I am not sure why the hate on the Swiss system as I am not sure I am all that familiar with any other system that would provide a clear winner in a tourney that wouldn't require tons more time. Pairing the same records together seems the bet way to go.

Again the proposed changes seem to be a nice step in the right direction and they are certainly better than the current system and it seems what people forget that if there is some unforeseen problem that arises it can always be changed back at the next opportunity. It is a living document.

i think the game needs a change. whether the changes that will happen in january be successful or not, remains to be seen. i like uggies and grans NOT scoring V points. i like reinforcements for what they should be (damaging, yet non-scoring pions.).
i dont like slow players.
as if it isnt obvious that you are holding up the game? there should have been a rule placed for that a year ago.
i dont know, Im new to the DCI scene (been playin for 3 and a half years tho), and when i went to my first tourney, i could see people deliberately play slow just to suck up Gambit like a sluggy sponge.
yup, dont like slow play.....it can go somewhere that i cant say, in fear of being pounced on.

Opponents dropping out of tounaments and screwing up ones S.O.S. is bad enough.
Now you want to additionaly penalize players because their opponent conceded a match?
You want people to be able to manipulate the results of a tourney by conceding matches? No, bad idea.
It's a players right to concede a match and I'd rather my opponent have 3 pts if I concede.


Yeah games shouldn't be an automatic 2 point victory for going to time.
That would encourage players too much abuse. Retaliation, tournment manipulation, ect.

Judges should have an option to award 3 victory pts. based on communication and looking at the end of game map.
I'm sure someone will come up with suggested guidelines for judges to follow.
For those situations where a winning player was attempting to play to finish.

Did the player notify a judge with concerns that the game would go to time?
Did the winner advance their squad sufficently to reach a retreating, camping, or room-locking opponent?
Did the winner defeat a majority of enemy characters and make a sufficent attempt to finish the battle?

Judges should reward players who won matches while bringing the fight to a slowplaying opponent. IMHO

Right Lobo I agree here also. I rather see gambit go away completely. The 2/3 ruling looks like it may help.

Right now there is a thread going on wizo started by NN for what maps should be included in the championships. Right now there is 6 with 2-3 possibles. The goal is to find some that are more melee vs non-melee balanced. There is 3 major criterias

1: can't get los across map
2: safe placement or walls in parts of gambit zone
3: and reasonable advancement possibilities

Right now there is only 6 that everyone so far agrees too that fit this. But this is using the current gambit placement.

My concern with not changing or doing away with gambit is because of the maps. We all know that most of the maps have an open gambit zone. To me this is because of the placement of the gambit zone and not so much the maps. If you play most of the maps without gambit they seem to be very playable. Your become less concerned about the center because you can play in the cover and wall zones on the sides of the map. So many of the maps are much more usable then what they are now. IMO

@ Nickname

I'm not so sure a stalemate situation is something we should be worried about. We already see that kind of crap happen with the game as it currently stands right now. The difference between whether your pieces gaining gambit are Reinforcements or not, is of little consequence to most people in the current game. It's usually not about whether I lose 3 points because my Ugo got killed in gambit. It's more the fact that I lost an activation.

I think the idea that Dean is pushing for here is to create an environment where people realize that they can't win all their games through stale-mate procedures, because they will not win tournaments that way. And once people start realizing that they can't win tournaments based on those sorts of games, then they will be less likely to instigate the stalemate.

I've personally always been like that. Heck, I lost to one of the guys at our LGS last week who I don't think has EVER beat me before, simply because I didn't feel like camping and making him come to me. I probably could've annihilated if I'd played more cautiously, and made him act first (and incidentally, he was playing San, while I had Republic in that game, so opposite side of the tempo-control argument from what most people say). But in an effort to play the game quicker, and to actually PLAY the game, I went on the offensive.

Players will just have to learn to do that.



What about the games where it's super close through-out the first 50 minutes, because one player is spreading their damage out really well. Then, in the last 10 minutes of the game, the other guy finally manages to wipe out 90% of the opponent's squad, by finally finishing off key figures. At the end of a round, the score is 140-34, but there's still 5 minutes on clock left. If the losing player would like to concede at that point, shouldn't the other guy get the full 3 points? I mean, the losing player only has things like San Hill and a few Ugnaughts left on the board, and quite obviously, the game is pretty much over. There's really no point playing out those last few minutes, and it would give both players a little extra time to get a soda or use the restroom or something before the next round.

Making a hard/fast rule that concessions can only happen in the first 45 minutes is just as ripe for abuse as anything else too. I think I understand what you're trying to do, is to keep people from artificially inflating their score from 2 pts to 3 pts if they didn't really finish the match. I think that's a noble reason. But honestly, there's a lot of times where games are clearly in the favor of one player (my example above), but they would need another 2-3 rounds to hunt down the pesky commanders hiding in the back. If the judge comes over, they would be able to easily discern that it's a solid win for the one player, and there would be no question who would win should the game continue another 2-3 rounds. In those situations, the judge needs the power to grant the full 3 point win and reward the players for working toward the completion of the game.

Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was worth worrying about. Just explaining that gambit serves additional functions (like stalemate aversion) in addition to its original purpose of curtailing override abuse. Its removal would have the potential to be a significant problem in this regard, but Dean has it right that this minor shift in stalemate allowance is counterbalanced well by the new match scoring.

First, being the "clear winner" is not the only concern, and second, yes pairing same records together is, IMO, the best way to go. But that's not what happens, and thus the biggest part of my hatred about the Swiss style of play. Let me try to explain.

Ranking is important to me, I mean if I'm going to play in this format I want my wins to count. Sometimes they don't. I am very attentive - you could even say I am anal about it - to who I am playing each round of a tournament and what their record is. When I am undefeated at the start of a round, I find it frustrating to learn I am facing an opponent with a loss on his or her record. I feel equally bad for an opponent who gets paired down against me on days where I am losing. When this happens in multiple rounds - while the other undefeated players continue to square off - it's no longer simply a sense of frustration. I realize it is just a game and that DCI means very little and SWM DCI means even less. However, I am of the opinion - based on years of experience with Swiss - that the system arbitrarily determines the rankings based not on one's own performance, but on who they play each round. This has really happened to me:

Round 1 - lose (0-1)
Round 2 vs. an 0-1 player (win, 1-1)
Round 3 vs. an 0-2 player (win, 2-1)
Round 4 vs. a 1-2 player (win, 3-1)

I went on to finish that tournament in 7th place, through no fault of my own (short of my round 1 loss, of course). That's what is known as being "paired down," when you face someone who has a weaker SoS than you (or conversely, paired up when you face someone with a better record than you). If the program actually paired people with like results every round - which I realize isn't always possible based on the number of players, but nevertheless - or even rotated who got paired down so it's not the same person each time, I wouldn't despise the system quite so much as I do. Winning isn't good enough in Swiss, unless you are the undefeated player. You can win almost every game and still lose.

Forgive me for posting so late. I have been following the discussion, though. I agree with the vast majority upcoming changes to the game we love.

The only problem I have is with the gambit debate. I agree that "Reinforcements" should not score gambit. I also agree that certain "low-value" pieces not be allowed to score gambit (forgive me if this has bee addressed elsewhere). I believe the number chosen was five points. However, I think that number should be raised to a higher number. The reasoning behind this is players should fight for gambit. This will prohibit players from having "diplomats" (Caamasi Nobles and Imperial Dignitaries) camping out in the gambit area, soaking up gambit. Someone at my LGS brought this up last night, and it got me thinking. The exception would be, in my opinion, Leia Organa, Senator. She can attack at range without reprisal, as long as the opponent has line-of-sight to another piece.

To counter this, I would like to see future maps that have the gambit area in such a way the opponents may obtain line-of-sight to just the "diplomat", or any other enemy and no one else.

Yeah, I don't know why that seems to happen sometimes. Honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with how many players you have. I've seen only very rare occassions where it's the exact same person that gets paired down every single round. The only way you will never have people get paired down is if you have exactly 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 players. Otherwise, someone will get paired down at some point.

The other thing is that Swiss is designed to determine a single 1st place winner. It isn't designed to sort out all the other places.

However, might be a good idea, Dean, as your making any other changes to the DCI software, to have them check how the pairing down is programmed. Maybe have them add a line of code that checks to see if the person got paired down in a previous round, and if they did, to choose someone else instead.



Every map already has that built in. It's called how you position your own pieces. Diplomats don't bother me at all. They're not that difficult to take out. I've yet to see anyone abuse them enough to be a severe problem in terms of gambit. If you're having trouble with it locally, then you may just need to practice with them more, or work harder to find those LOS which allow you to attack them. Could also be that you're playing some part of the Diplomat rules incorrectly and inadvertently making them more powerful than they ought to be. So, might want to double-check on that.

How many points do you get for a bye?

3 but you dont get help for your SOS though. Dean and Bill were talking about this on there show last night.