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."

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

None... BUT, I also haven't presented specific scenarios in my head about how it would work. All I did was throw out the ideas.



Totally agree, particularly about Jason's solid playtesting skills. That said, to dismiss the idea out of hand based on a random worst-case-scenario theory is still premature to me. Not saying he's wrong, but show me the data.

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.

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

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.

I just saw Cars 2 today with my daughter. So Tint, you're saying that he's like Mater becoming a secret agent towtruck?

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)

I'm a truck driver. Anything I spell correctly, even when incorrectly used in context, should be viewed with amazement.

Trevor is correct: my full title is Dr. Buttcabbge.

Anyway, "buttcabbage" goes back to a high school joke too stupid to justify repeating. At some point in the 90's, I started using it as an AOL screen name, but their screen names could only be ten characters long, so I dropped the last "a", and then I just kept using the name on other sites because I knew it was something I would remember.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Different thoughts for discussion:

Gambit reward is determined after one player runs out of activations (or a minimum of 5 opponent activations, which ever is more) and is only counted for activated characters. [High activation squads only gain gambit by activating "important" characters early in the round.]

After time is called, include 1/2 character cost to score for all characters with <=1/2 HP. [Partial kills count for tie breakers and will be harder to run to safety late.]

<sigh> Ok, I'll get back to the topic. In addition to Ben's proposals, I heard another idea today on SWMiniverse's latest podcast. On the show Tim interviewed Kezzamachine from New Zealand. He said during the interview that they've been using the 3/2 scoring method with a small addition: that 1pt is also awarded to players who lose a game but score half of the build total. It is a simple addition but I feel that this encourages and rewards engagement. I think he said he's discussed this with 'Gamers recently. I think this is a great idea.

In MechWarrior concession from game = concession from tourney. It worked fine. If people were sticking around then they could throw their last few pieces to the wolves and have it over in 5 minutes. If they wanted to go nuclear they weren't playing anymore that day.

I don't see any need to go that far, but you could word it so that happens by default if people walk away but judges can overrule it if called, and will be very lenient in allowing continuing in the tourney when it's just a case where you're clearly going to lose and need to make a bathroom trip or phone call or something.

Eerie how close that is to my VERY VERY first suggestion in how to modify scoring so long ago.

Incentive for the loser to complete the game has always seemed like a no brainer to me if you want to emphasize complete games.

The 1 pt win is a nice further incentive.

I also encourage more design based solutions to deemphasize the same elements Dennis finds problematic but I don't think scoring needs to be modified as radically as Dennis suggests in his original post.

I can almost certainly guarentee you Option #1 will not work. In my booster league Im running over on BM, I too wanted to change the scoring system -- so I made Gambit be worth 15 points. In the end players who had overwhelming amounts of HP and characters lost due to gambit.
Option #2 is certainly interesting; but allows more room for camping in Gambit.
#3 would definiely speed up the game, but wouldnt allow room for those come-back wins which are always fun to read about. Plus, it just makes Big Ds that just more despicable. Round 1: Oh hey, your Maul COTS is sticking out of a corner. I think Ill swap this character with Boba and attack....20! Big D. Game over.
#4 I like that idea. Tax people for using Override. Reminds me of Wheel of fortune where you have to pay for vowels lol. Thatll teach people to put 10 ERCs in a single squad!

Another idea:

If time is called, total the kill points from the 2 players. If the total does not equal or exceed the team total, it is a double loss. For instance, in a 200 point game, a score of 95 to 90 (=185 summed) counts as a double loss because neither player engaged enough. Or make it 150% of team total.

Then apply any other score modifiers, like gambit.

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 get 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.

[thereisnotry Likes this comment]
/Facebook-isms

Looks like a nice easy place to start. +1

What Weeks posted does sound very interesting and not difficult to remember. Very interesting changes that could definitely work...