TBH, I think that you guys are approaching this in completely the wrong way. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the intent of the game is to "finish" (i.e. reach the build total) in 60 minutes. This is, in fact, the only game where I have ever seen that comment about the "official tournament" rules, which is DCI in this case. In reality, most miniatures games also have at least 1 way to score points that doesn't involve killing pieces, and I'm of the opinion that it adds a tactical element to the game that would not otherwise be present. Then again, I've always been more interested in non-linear strategy than in linear strategy (one reason I only played chess casually). Heck, most miniatures games either don't have a notable time limit or else don't expect the players to finish within the time limit (and have more intricate rules for scoring when they don't).

So take that for what you think it's worth... just a different perspective from the norm, it would appear.

Actually Aaron the gambit was still in there [sticks tongue out]

Fun is relative, though. My roommate, for instance, LOVES those close, tense, 40-35 games that comes down to tight positioning and careful shots.

Maybe we should just do away with Gambit altogether and go with the rule:

Games are limited to 60 minutes or less, though players are encouraged to complete the game in a shorter amount of time, if possible.

If a game goes to time, add up the total points based on characters defeated. (San Hill is worth 10 points, for example.) The person with the most points is the winner.

If a game goes 10 rounds without a character making an attack, taking damage, or rolling a save initiated by an enemy character's action, the game immediately ends at the end of the 10th round. For each character within 4 squares of the middle of the map, the controlling player scores 10 points.

A player who used Override 5 or more times in that 10-round period loses 50 points.

Gambit is the saving grace in most games against slow play. I will not support any method that makes it more difficult to obtain.

I also won't likely support anything that makes a major change in the game rules. I don't think that is needed at this time, it pisses people off unnecessarily, and often creates as many new problems as it fixes. Minor tweaks here and there are ok and helpful, but changing the scoring system is too much.

LOL

I know where you guys are coming from. We have the same issue at my LGS. Probably at least 60% of our games go to time there. Most of us are having a blast, and very few times does anyone actually complain about one person playing slow. Most of the time, the person playing slow ends up being the loser anyways.

In addition, we play 50 minute rounds at a maximum, simply because we're trying to squeeze in 4 rounds on most nights. So, usually, we play 50 minutes for 200 point games, 40 or 45 minutes for 150, and 30 minutes for 100 points. It's actually pretty interesting how much of a difference those 10 minutes make. 90% of the games that end when time is called, and the score is something like 40-30, if those games had 1-2 more rounds, the scores would usually be something more like 120-50 by the end of that next round or two. So, for our group, we usually don't fuss about the 'slow play' because it's already starting to be obvious who was going to win, and most of us can extrapolate what the next round or two would hold.

But....regardless of how much fun you might be having, with your super tight, brain-scratching games that go to time...don't you think you might have more fun if you played the games all the way to their conclusion? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if you really could come back after you lost that key commander?

These are the types of things in this thread that we've been trying to communicate. Many SWM are comfortable with the game as it is. Humans naturally resist change. But sit down with your friends, and agree that you're all going to try playing faster, even if it means making a few mistakes here and there. What we're suggesting is that you will probably have more fun overall in that scenario.

This isn't necessarily about what's right or wrong, or whether 4 rounds in an hour is OK. It's about getting back to what the spirit of the game was designed around: killing your opponent's squad. Regardless of what the DCI rules say, killing your opponent's squad was the first way, and only way at the beginning, of winning games. We'd just like to see things shift back towards that.

Gambit was not introduced until AFTER the Universe set came out.

Oh, I understand what this thread is trying to communicate. I'm not against encouraging faster play and completing games - it's a great goal. I'm just saying that some games go to time with low scores and are GREAT games, and there is no "stalling" going on - it is just part of the nature of the builds and player matchups. I'm just not for hard limits or minimums with regards to number of rounds played etc, or penalties, unless the judge can actually verify an abusive situation happening.

I have an open mind about this - I just don't want see things changed in a way that makes it even harder for the less experienced players to compete. People have different learning styles. Being "forced" to play fast would be good (and fun) for some, but maybe not so much for others.

So sure, let's coax things back in that direction. I'm just wary of what rules changes could mean.

The fear from some is that maybe some players and judges interpret guidelines/suggestions as rules changes.

Not one. The fear from some is that maybe some players and judges interpret guidelines/suggestions as rules changes.

As a new player and a new member of the community I read the DCI rules as scoring points is what matters, or keep your opponent from scoring points. Not kill your opponent, but keeping them from getting to the 150 point condition, while scoring your own points.

The point of gambit scoring was to allow you to still achieve victory with a combination of kills and center points if your opponent locked himself in a room, or "camped" on the fringes of the map or start area. It wasn't really implimented to allow any gameplay speed or score differential no matter how low be an alternative form of victory. Something was lost in translation and it wasn't really evident until these discussions pointed out that that wording is not explicit in the floor rules.

Granted, it's not a real change but any time you flesh out concepts into something more concrete, whether meant as guidelines or something more, this usually can and does happen.

Exactly, which is what I propose cleaning up in the next update.

How do you do that? If you allow points to be a victory condition that has equal weight as defeating your opponent there is still no incentive for a player to try and eliminate the other team. I generally play most games and not just SWM in a defensive manner. (After all a good offense is a good defense.) I play to minimize the points that can be scored on me because at the end of the day a W is still a W and there is no difference between a point win and a Kill win. I think unless there is some way you can fix that your never going to fix the problem of the perception of what the point of the game is.

It has been lost in the thread, but I also proposed changing the tie breaker scoring in a time limit game, to include scoring 1/2 pts for any mini with less than 1/2 health remaining. This will hamper the defensive player from abusing the time limit by running in the last round in many cases.

You want to stop slow play issues? I'll tell you exactly how to do it, and it will be so unpopular that there may be a lynching for saying it.

Activation limits.

No more than 6 characters in 100.
No more than 10 characters in 150.
No more than 12 characters in 200.

Characters with Swarm ignore this restriction.
Characters that enter the game through abilities such as Reserves or Reinforcements ignore this restriction.

Watch what happens.

It took me a while to locate this post.

DDM included an activation limit. It really made fodder pieces not throw away. If you only had a few cheap pieces, you would be much less likely to risk them in the Gambit zone.

I'm for heavily considering the above suggestion. It made DDM a fun game to play.