What if we were to change it to, every round there are 10 Gambit points available. If both players have at least one 5+ point character in gambit, they both get 5 points (just like now). If no one is in gambit, no gambit points are scored (just like now). And if only one player has a 5+ point character in gambit, that player gets all 10 points for the round.

This would accomplish the goal of punishing people who refuse to engage, or who disengage once they achieve a certain lead at a certain point of the game (which seems to be the concern that started the thread). At the same time, this version would minimize the possibility of the scenario Bill is discussing, where two players who are both fully engaged might have a good game cut short when someone hits 200 points even though there is still a bunch of stuff on the board because they've both collected 60-70 gambit points. Also, it has the benefit of being fairly idiot-proof, whereas some of the more complicated proposals might test the mathematical acumen of those of us who majored in things that taught us words like "acumen."

Jasons strategy is valid until proven otherwise and its probably the perfect start point for testing this theory. I mean, how many playtests have you run this plan through?

Playtests give you information, but the amount of information is totally dependent on the design of the test itself. Casual tests show you if the pieces play as you think but top tier tests are where the pieces are shown to be broken or not. In my experience, Jason excels in these aspects because he creates the thought experiment first and then pursues it. Several crucial design alterations have been made off the back of his squad builds, you would do well to heed and test his opinion.

I liked everything about Ben's post except that he made me look up the word 'acumen'.

I like Ben's post as well. I also had to look up "acumen" to be sure it meant what I thought. I was pretty close.




Any of these concepts for a new scoring system could just be used as the tiebreaker for games that don't complete, much as things are now. Just a new means of tracking points that requires more risk.

He is an English professor with a Ph.D, if I recall correctly, so don't let his screenname fool you: he's really smart.

It disturbs me that a guy going by the moniker 'Buttcabbage' can rattle off a word effortlessly that I have to look up.

You spelled cabbage correctly, and yet incorrectly in context.

What does the professor have to say about this?

(side note: I swear one of these days I will learn to self-moderate. /hijack)

You spelled cabbage correctly, and yet incorrectly in context.

What does the professor have to say about this?

(side note: I swear one of these days I will learn to self-moderate. /hijack)

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

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

Changes that are simple and I'd be willing to help playtest

#1. no first round gambit

#2 if your the only side holding gambit you get 10 points for holding it.

#3 if your opponent gets a 3 point win on you you get 1 point.

By not letting first round gambit happen you give each side a chance to advance even without movement breakers you can can there.

By you not advancing your punishing yourself for not getting into gambit. Gambit would be scored normally if both players hold it.

People should be rewarded for losing to the 3 point win. If you go 2-2 and have 2 3 pointers and 2 1 pointers you have 8. Which beats the guy who went 3-1 with 3 2 point wins and a 1 pointer. This encourages engagement and playing the game in an hour.


I'm open to discussing adding 10-15 minutes onto Rounds but I honestly don't think it's needed. These changes are simple and don't take away or add too much to the overall gameplay. You still need to advance, you still need to play the game in an hour. All these changes offer rewards to those that do.