logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:54 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
In another thread, I wrote that I would like to see the scoring system completely overhauled. This is my idea, and I am planning to test it throughout the remainder of the year at various opportunities:

It's a 4-prong approach/change.

1. Characters are not worth victory points. The only way to score victory points is through what is currently the "Gambit bonus," meaning having a character within the designated range at the middle of the map.

2. Gambit bonus range is extended to six squares instead of four, and also includes the opponent's "four squares from the edge" starting area.

3. A win is declared at the end of the round in which one player has a number of points equal to half or greater of the build total (meaning 50 points in a 100-point game and 100 points in a 200-point game).

4. In any round where no player made an attack, rolled a save, or used an ability to deal damage to an enemy character, if a player used Override that round, the player loses 2 points of Gambit. At the end of five consecutive such rounds, each player that used Override in each of those rounds loses all of his or her Gambit points, and the player with the most points wins.

There would still be a time limit, but I believe this would eliminate the biggest problem with the competitive game right now - getting a rapid but marginal points lead and then playing out the game at a slower but still steady pace because you have the upper hand on your opponent. It won't prevent gatekeeper squads from still using that tactic, but just because you knock out a ton of figures doesn't mean you can't still be defeated on points.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:02 am 
One of the Sith on Malgus' Shuttle
One of the Sith on Malgus' Shuttle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:31 pm
Posts: 3575
Location: Cincinnati, OH
That would see a quick return of Han Solo in Carbonite since he would be considered for Part 2 (unless a special rule is made).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:11 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
That is a simple fix. We errata the Han in Carbonite piece to say it cannot score victory points much in the same way the Force Spirits abilities are written. :)

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:12 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
Also, I believe one very legitimate suggestion made in the early days of fleshing out this concept was that players cannot score Gambit on the first round.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:58 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3519
This seems way, way too complicated in my opinion. Our current rules are simple: Kill stuff, possibly collect some gambit, you have an hour. It may not be perfect, but there is a whole lot to say for simplicity, especially since we're talking about the basic rules of the game.

My biggest issue with it, though, is that you're taking defeating characters out of the equation. This game is a a skirmish game, an abstraction of combat. I'd be ok with creating new gambit zones, or increasing the number of points you get from gambit, or whatever. But I think there should always be a direct benefit to defeating characters, and gambit or alternative ways of scoring points should be a secondary way to win, not the only way.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:04 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3519
Also, you must be missing a detail (or I missed readig it) like increasing the points you get for gambit or letting you collect multiple gambits a round, because as is you have to play a minimum of 50 rounds for a 200 point game.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:52 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 5:25 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Atlanta SWM
I do think the scoring system should be revisited (especially by the main designers of the v-sets). The game is constantly evolving (new sets, maps, etc.) so I think the scoring system should evolve with it. I don't know if the above mentioned changes are the way to go, but it's a good starting point for discussion.

-I do really like the idea of scoring points for invading the opponents starting area.
-Also, I am curious what would happen if gambit was increased to ~10 points?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:31 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
It doesn't take defeating characters out of the equation any more than the current gambit system does, and in truth less so. Last year at GenCon there were issues taken with people who took the point lead and then threw the game into cruise control. Apparently there was an attitude among some if not all of the judges that even though you are winning you should make poor plays and terrible tactical decisions that would allow your opponent to catch back up and keep the game close right up until time is called. 9 times out of 10, if you are ahead by at least 20 points, you are going to win - unless the judge overrules the outcome of the game.

Secondly, kill em all is still first and foremost the requirement for victory. Nothing about the proposals above change that. All it does is make it so that point scoring due to the time limit requirement is very rigid and very, well, secondary. Racing around on my highest point cost piece with a pair of Lancers and your 24 act squad while avoiding my characters that can actually counter your figure is no longer a threat to victory in the game. If you won't engage my Jedi Seer with your Lancer, then I still have a chance to win the game. And IMO, given how out of spirit of the game the Lancer/swap squad concepts are (assuming the goal truly is equal opportunity for engagement), and given that the judges saw fit to penalize people who played such squads last year, a lot of the stuff proposed really isn't that big of a stretch to deal with the current problems in Gambit. Will it solve every problem in tournament play? Maybe not. Does it create new issues? Possibly. But those things can be dealt with just as easily, with more tweaking.

I am a little iffy on the whole Override concept/suggestion as well, but I take Deri's comments to heart that door control is what created this problem. If a player is going for a 5-round point win, there should be a penalty as well as a deterrent.

Bottom line - Gambit. Doesn't. Work. At least, not in its current form. So before you dismiss this idea out of hand on theory, try a few games of it with these rules in place and see for yourself whether you like any or all of the suggestions. And try to be open minded about it. :)

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:47 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:06 pm
Posts: 572
Location: Lexington Park, MD
I'd be interested in playtesting this on Vassal after Gencon. We'll see if they'll work. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:30 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Last year at GenCon there were issues taken with people who took the point lead and then threw the game into cruise control. Apparently there was an attitude among some if not all of the judges that even though you are winning you should make poor plays and terrible tactical decisions that would allow your opponent to catch back up and keep the game close right up until time is called.


Okay, that has gotten old and has been run into the ground.

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:16 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
I disagree. I believe it is still very much so relevant, especially with GenCon only a week and a half away. Perhaps if your opinion were different now, or there were guidelines in place to better deal with it, but it continues to be a source of contention.

It's not personal, either - merely a difference of opinion/school of thought.

EDIT: It was not much more than a month ago that you and I had a one-on-one conversation about it.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:26 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:18 am
Posts: 532
Location: Eugene Oregon
what would happen if you

1) increased gambit from 5 to 10, making it more important
2) allow you to gain gambit 5 points per character per round,
3) here's just a crazy idea just to toss out, gambit is equal to half the character points (rounded down) that is in gambit. Only if you have the only non diplomat in gambit (or something better worded) That will get people engaging quickly if someone tosses Revan in there.

_________________
Text Based RP @ The Galactic War Site


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:28 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3519
I'm actually all in favor of changes to Gambit; making it worth more points, creating more gambit zones (like your opponent's starting area), things like that. I just don't like the "characters aren't worth victory points" aspect, because I think that is more opposed to "the spirit of the game" than any strategy that is currently possible. The spirit of the game is Star Wars dudes fighting each other; I can somewhat understand your argument that playing a strategy where YOU get to fight but your opponent doesn't is against that spirit (although I don't 100% agree with it), but I definitely think that changing the base rules so that fighting isn't even part of the game (even though obviously defeating opponent's pieces would make your goal of getting gambit easier) is absolutely contrary to that spirit. This isn't king of the hill, this is a skirmish.

That said, I'd be certainly willing to test it, probably post-GenCon. And I definitely agree with some of your other points, and think that there very well might be a good change behind this, I just think there are some flaws in your original proposal.

Another thing, though, is that with v-sets now some issues (like the strength of Override) can be dealt with via game design (like creating more abilities that counter Override, either directly or indirectly), and I think that option is infinitely better than making a floor rule that just outright punishes you for using Override.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:34 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I disagree. I believe it is still very much so relevant, especially with GenCon only a week and a half away. Perhaps if your opinion were different now, or there were guidelines in place to better deal with it, but it continues to be a source of contention.

It's not personal, either - merely a difference of opinion/school of thought.

EDIT: It was not much more than a month ago that you and I had a one-on-one conversation about it.



I was not contending the proposed changes, only the slight against the judges which, since we have had several conversations about it in the past year and you have my side of it, did indeed make it seem personal, trite and petty.

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:15 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 3886
1. Fairly unclear unless you define victory. And gets tricky with #3. It makes it as if killing the opponent's figs means squat. And killing a Mouse is the same as killing GMLS.
2. Not too concerned about.
3. Full or Partial (currently Timed) Win? Very important. And what about Ties, what determines the victor, when at the end of a round, both players have the "winning" total of Gambit. Figs aren't part of victory points anymore. # of figs killed? Or points killed, which brings us back to where we are today.
4. No. Nice house rules, but no where NEAR good enough for a competitive play rule. Just way too far from the rulebook.

_________________
Bloomilk Ambassador


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:17 pm 
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:17 pm
Posts: 186
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Racing around on my highest point cost piece with a pair of Lancers and your 24 act squad while avoiding my characters that can actually counter your figure is no longer a threat to victory in the game. If you won't engage my Jedi Seer with your Lancer, then I still have a chance to win the game.

Dennis, we get it. You don't like the meta. You don't like heavy activation control and Arica/lancer. You have expressed this opinion hundreds of times. Please stop acting as though having a meta you do not care for is a game-threatening problem that must be addressed with massive errata/rules changes/shaming players into not using good squads.

And this isn't even any kind of solution. What, if he leaves your seer alone for TWENTY TURNS so you can get 100 points of gambit? Does that sound feasible to you? Does that even vaguely make sense? (Hint: He can strafe it 5 times without even losing a lancer)

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
And IMO, given how out of spirit of the game the Lancer/swap squad concepts are (assuming the goal truly is equal opportunity for engagement), and given that the judges saw fit to penalize people who played such squads last year, a lot of the stuff proposed really isn't that big of a stretch to deal with the current problems in Gambit.

In my humble opinion, you ought to play the some game more before you try to rebuild it. Movement breakers are the core of the game. Creating opportunities to attack your opponent at low or no risk to yourself is the core of the game. It is my opponent's task to attack my pieces. Making it possible or easy is not my job.

There are strategies in most every game that a fraction of the player base finds unappealing or even frustrating or infuriating. The more complex the rules, the worse it gets. By the Coruscant expansion, SWCCG had gotten so complex and sprawled so widely that they added shields to try to rein in the less pleasant or "Star Wars-y" tactics. Even today some people build "shield-buster" decks to try and get around that and play abusive cards anyway. Maybe SWM needs more pieces that protect against lancer ganking. But having Han shoot you from across the table while you can't do anything is pretty bad too. Or trying to hustle your melee pieces through a corridor jammed with 10 mouse droids. Or having the Yammosk steal your CE. Or any number of other things. Right now all of those things are part of the game. Over time we as a group have to decide what to keep, what to nerf, and what new things to add. By nature, that will be a gradual process.

Unilateral, sweeping changes to the rules and the game's core activities are not the way to effect such changes.

_________________
Image
GMB from ATL


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:39 am 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
ndjarnag wrote:
I don't know if the above mentioned changes are the way to go, but it's a good starting point for discussion.


i disagree. this is a terrible idea.

Echo wrote:
I just don't like the "characters aren't worth victory points" aspect, because I think that is more opposed to "the spirit of the game" than any strategy that is currently possible. The spirit of the game is Star Wars dudes fighting each other; but I definitely think that changing the base rules so that fighting isn't even part of the game (even though obviously defeating opponent's pieces would make your goal of getting gambit easier) is absolutely contrary to that spirit. This isn't king of the hill, this is a skirmish.


+1

greentime wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Racing around on my highest point cost piece with a pair of Lancers and your 24 act squad while avoiding my characters that can actually counter your figure is no longer a threat to victory in the game. If you won't engage my Jedi Seer with your Lancer, then I still have a chance to win the game.

Dennis, we get it. You don't like the meta. You don't like heavy activation control and Arica/lancer. You have expressed this opinion hundreds of times. Please stop acting as though having a meta you do not care for is a game-threatening problem that must be addressed with massive errata/rules changes/shaming players into not using good squads.

And this isn't even any kind of solution. What, if he leaves your seer alone for TWENTY TURNS so you can get 100 points of gambit? Does that sound feasible to you? Does that even vaguely make sense? (Hint: He can strafe it 5 times without even losing a lancer)

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
And IMO, given how out of spirit of the game the Lancer/swap squad concepts are (assuming the goal truly is equal opportunity for engagement), and given that the judges saw fit to penalize people who played such squads last year, a lot of the stuff proposed really isn't that big of a stretch to deal with the current problems in Gambit.

In my humble opinion, you ought to play the some game more before you try to rebuild it. Movement breakers are the core of the game. Creating opportunities to attack your opponent at low or no risk to yourself is the core of the game. It is my opponent's task to attack my pieces. Making it possible or easy is not my job.

There are strategies in most every game that a fraction of the player base finds unappealing or even frustrating or infuriating. The more complex the rules, the worse it gets. Maybe SWM needs more pieces that protect against lancer ganking. But having Han shoot you from across the table while you can't do anything is pretty bad too. Or trying to hustle your melee pieces through a corridor jammed with 10 mouse droids. Or having the Yammosk steal your CE. Or any number of other things. Right now all of those things are part of the game. Over time we as a group have to decide what to keep, what to nerf, and what new things to add. By nature, that will be a gradual process.

Unilateral, sweeping changes to the rules and the game's core activities are not the way to effect such changes.


Amen brother!!!
(And I don't even play lancers.)

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:57 am 
Sithlord's Sportmanship Winner 2010
Sithlord's Sportmanship Winner 2010
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 335
Why don't we keep gambit like it is and you gain points from killing minis. Instead we should just make the poimt limit half of the squad points. For instance we make it to where you need only 100 points to win a 200 point game. Just an idea.

_________________
Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody the power, the other to crave it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:08 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:06 pm
Posts: 572
Location: Lexington Park, MD
I'm not a fan of anything that takes emphasis away from killing all your opponent's pieces. When I first started playing the game, Ted and I would keep playing until the other person's pieces were all dead. That's what the goal of the game should be. Requiring you to only kill a maximum of half of their pieces just doesn't make sense in a skirmish game where you see your enemies on the other side of the map and think to yourself, "Ah crap, we gotta kill all those guys!" If that made any sense, then I made my point. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:18 pm 
Moff Disra
Moff Disra

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1359
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
gunther wrote:
Why don't we keep gambit like it is and you gain points from killing minis. Instead we should just make the poimt limit half of the squad points. For instance we make it to where you need only 100 points to win a 200 point game. Just an idea.

I've played several other games with a similar mechanic. As soon as you defeat either half in the number of units or half in the number of points, the game ends.

I'm not sure how that would translate over to SWM. This would take some more thought to look at the hidden consequences.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield