While I'm not in favor at this time of Dennis' major change to the general game (and it should be obvious that he isn't proposing these go into effect without immense play testing, which he in the first post promised to do), I could be convinced for making major changes like those proposed, probably with some modifications.

What I think is more interesting, and perhaps a better way to go however, is to work on an alternative format entirely. There are a few reasons I think this would be the better solution. First, not all of our maps were made with Gambit in mind. Second, many of the custom maps, were designed with other considerations entirely. Chris as we all know, makes beautiful maps that we all enjoy, they just aren't 100% catered to our rules in many cases, which causes problems with their playability in the competitive game. But we were able to add a bunch to the Standard list. When we came up with the idea for multiple lists of maps, one of the "future" plans was to look at other formats that might cater to different maplists. I think a great idea, is to consider that we might be able to create/run a different format of play that can use many of the maps we all already have effectively. Alternative victory conditions could do that. It will take a lot of work and play testing, but it's worth looking into. And if we were able to establish an alternative format effectively, that would give us the option of running 2 different championships at Gencon, instead of just one. Even further, if after a year or so of play, if people started preferring the new format, it could replace "Standard" play as the dominate version. I'm all for trying out new ideas and seeing what can happen. I don't agree with Dennis that the current format cannot be continually tinkered with, or that his assessment of the "problems" is fully correct. But I also don't think it has to be one way or the high way. I would love to find a way to use other maps for another way to play, that will help keep the game fresh and interesting for years to come. It also could foster a greater use of maps that aren't as good for our current format, and help keep our friendly neighborhood mapmakers in business - which we all want.

I was upset that none of Chris' maps were able to make the Restricted list. That was indeed unfortunate. It was the right decision however, and I recognize that Brad and Dean made a very very tough call on it. I respect them greatly for taking the heat for doing it. I know a couple of Chris' maps right off the top of my head that would have worked great with alternative gambit locations. Even if they weren't the best choices for our current rule set, what's to stop us from looking at creating an alternative format that caters to other ways to play? Chris - I'd love to see a couple of images of maybe 2-3 of your maps on the standard list with something like this outlined just as a conversation piece. I think it would help people visualize ideas better.

I personally would lean toward this (although I am indifferent about 1st rd gambit). After Gencon will have to test some games like this and see how it plays.

Then IMO you don't like the current tournament rules, either. The goal is still to get a points lead and if you can't win by defeating all your opponent's figures, then you don't try.

Thanks Bill. This is along my line of thinking. My suggestions/proposals are nothing more than a starting point for discussion and testing. They are not meant to be an end-all be all set of changes to the game. Any or all of these are worth consideration as are other ideas that could crop up along the way, and especially from other people.

I have heard both sides of it since our last conversation, from the people involved and in various discussions with you and with them. The only one - THE ONLY ONE - who ever gets angry or considers the opposing viewpoint/reaction "personal, trite and petty" is YOU. In other words, you are the one who is offended, not me and not them. Understanding, acknowledging and explaining a differing point of view is not an attack on the person or people with that viewpoint.

If that's the primary concern (people not going for full wins), how about something like extending the official time limit to an hour and 15 minutes, and you get only 1 point for a timed win instead of 2. I know when the 3/2 scoring was first being conceived alternatives were considered; was 3/1 one of those alternatives? If so, what were the results?

Thanks for your input. I am glad someone is keeping count of how many times I post an opinion. I don't think I have a total of 100 posts, let alone "hundreds" on a very limited subject.



I care about fairness and balance of game play in the spirit which it was intended. It has nothing to do with what I personally care for, and anyone who knows me on these boards can attest to that.



Hence invalidating your theory that I am only "upset" about the Lancer.



Again - and this is not a personal attack on anyone - there is a somewhat dominant school of thought that is in conflict with this opinion. I happen to agree with you but I am not a judge at the major events.



Completely agree with you. But I also believe that the proposal starts with the largest extreme and then we scale back to the middle ground. This ensures all the bases are covered.

I don't know the answer to the question about the results, my guess is that is something for Bill or Dean.

Regarding the increase to time limit, my prediction is it just means the slow player would have an additional 15 minutes to stall before going for the come-from-behind point lead. Maybe reducing the time limit would have more impact, lol.

The extension of the time limit would have to be done along with the reduction of timed wins to just 1 point. Yeah, you have an extra 15 minutes to get the come-from-behind point lead, but that only gets you a single point. I'd think that just getting 1 point instead of 2 makes a pretty big difference. The extra time allows players who are honestly trying to get the 3 point win but can't do it in an hour for some reason (bad luck, bad matchup, whatever) to have a little more breathing room to get those 3 points, since getting 1 point instead of 2 is a big difference.

This is the best idea I've heard yet. Obviously, it needs testing (as do all these ideas). Speed of play wasn't a concern for me at all last year, but I guess it must've been for others; in that case, maybe a 3/1 scoring system will accomplish the goal better than a 3/2 scoring system. Going 6-1 with six 1pt wins won't get you very far.

The only problem with that system is that going 1-2 with a 3pt win gives you just as many points as going 3-0 with 1pt wins. Maybe that's a bad thing, or maybe it just further illustrates the point that an incomplete "victory" is no victory at all.

One of the ideas we've floated around in discussions amongst the Chicago/Michigan crowds have been variations on the scoring system. I will give one example, but there are others, and ways to tweak this as desired.

Just for example, the following I give you:

3Pts - full win, yada yada, same as before.
2pts - tie breaker win where you score 3/4 of the required points. Can also be tied into playing a required number of rounds (for example 8 minimum to qualify)
1Pt - Less than 3/4 of the build total in a tie breaker win
0 pt - loss
1pt - loss where opponent gained a full win

Yes, that's right, in this system, you gain the same amount of points by winning a cheesy tie breaker (Boris' main concern) as losing a full game. With this, there is no advantage to playing a slow game. You would never even win a small tournament with 3pts (3-0, all 1pt wins) as a 2-1 player would almost always beat you. For that matter, a 1-2 player could beat you. The issue would come from two things. 1st, you'd have people complaining about placing lower than someone with a worse record than you quite often, because we already have it in our heads that record means more than actually finishing the game (even if it isn't true). But people would complain none-the-less. 2nd, you'd have to deal with fake full wins more often. I know it hasn't been a huge deal in the current system (some occasional complaints of it though) of people conceeding near the time limit to help their opponent. If you add another motivation to do so, the judge will have to be that much more adamant that all concessions after the 30 minute mark (which is already in the rules mind you) is enforced, and that violations result in disciplinary action - like granting both players a game loss directly, or even dismissal from the tournament altogether. Of tertiary concern, and very minor, would be the opponent who tried to prevent the 2pt win by preventing a final death in the late game - but that's an issue with our current system as well, and it hasn't been much of one. So I don't consider it particularly important, just worth mentioning to be fully clear about the idea.

I don't think I've ever gotten angry with you, but when it has been brought up over and over and over by you, then it shows a complete lack of disrespect for anything I've said to you on the matter. You need to read your last line more carefully and take it to heart because it is you who has refused to see my side in it and now I'm a little irritated, nothing more.

I think I have shown far more often than not that I am one who can be convinced, you just haven't done that. It's all in the way you bring it up, it's never been about convincing me, just flat out telling people that I am wrong, that's what has gotten old.

Of course, I also realize, more often than not, we have a tendency to completly misread each other online, and I am sure it is quite likely here.

I actually particularly like that idea, and have always thought that giving 1 point to the loser of a full win is a good idea. It takes both players playing a good speed to get the game finished, so even the loser should be rewarded for their game speed. My biggest concern would actually be your second point, with people reporting false full wins. I think having a good judge and having the penalty for that be very strict (I'd be in favor of the standard penalty be ejection from the tournament) should help cut that down, although in a really big tournament it will be difficult to keep an eye on everybody.

Fair enough. Really there is no right or wrong only a difference of opinion and a desire to find the middle ground, which some of these proposals can do.

Just disallow concessions after the halfway point altogether?

Well this is the rule actually, it's just that the judge can override it and allow legitimate ones, but by the rules, you have to leave the board as is, and call the judge. Brad can clarify what his plan is, but I think it's similar to what was done at the regionals. Where any games that are nearing time must call the judge for a 3pt win, or they are going to only get a 2.

I'm pretty sure my rule for Gencon (and beyond) will now be "200 or 2" plain, simple, and effective. We'll see though, it will be clear prior to the Championships what my stance is.

I would support this. It would be interesting if someone could keep an eye on the timed games at Gencon and get an idea about what percent of them end with someone 75% of the way towards victory and what percent are like the infamous Rebel mirror match when the only dead pieces are Lobot reinforcements and like Juno Eclipse. One of Daniel's wins at Gencon fit that latter description, so it isn't something that only affects new/bad/ultraconservative players.

Also, maps with custom gambit would be great. Why not do it that way? As long as the map is fair and both starting zones have equal opportunity to get to gambit, why should it have to be in the dead middle and yay big? You could even go further and give one side an advantage in gambit access, offset by a door/access/cover advantage to the other side. That would be hard to balance, but it'd add an entire extra dimension of tactical consideration.

Agreed with the above, but none of my games at Gencon last year were particularly low scoring. Of my 3 2-point wins on Saturday one I had about 180 points, one I only failed to kill some Rebel commanders and I think Luke RC, and the third I managed to kill Nyna Calixte, Arica, one Storm Commando, and a bunch of Gran Raiders, plus collected plenty of gambit. You're probably thinking of my game against Jason A at the Owensboro regional this year, which did end with very little dead.

It would definitely be interesting to see how many of the 2-point wins are close to completion but don't quite make it. Are we having the players turn in slips of paper indicating a 2 or 3 point win? Maybe we can have players put the number of points they both earned on it also.

But unfortunately you can't stop someone from picking up their pieces in disgust and walking away in frustration (ie just had some bad dice rolls or something and lost the last big piece, etc).

Also, if someone wants to concede they shouldn't be penalized and have to wait for a judge or continue to play out a game in which they clearly think they win, especially if their opp is playing slowly or something