S1AL wrote:
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.
Well, for me....."finish the game" does not necessarily equal "kill all your opponents pieces". "Finish the game" equals "reach the build total limit of (for instance) 150 points". I'm 100% for alternate methods of achieving points in the game.
Mickey wrote:
Actually Aaron the gambit was still in there [sticks tongue out]
Not sure what you mean there. Gambit was not introduced until AFTER the Universe set came out. So, four full sets of the rules simply being "kill your opponent's squad within the time limit" (or, yes, I know, have more points than your opponent when time was called). Gambit was then introduced to combat the Override/Lockout issues.
Cybit wrote:
Fun is relative, though. My roommate, for instance, LOVES those close, tense, 40-35 games that comes down to tight positioning and careful shots.
I'm not saying that this can't be fun too. I'm just suggesting to try playing games to completion. I would definitely agree with Dean on this one. I think by playing only to a 40-35 score means you're missing out on a lot that the game has to offer, and a lot on how to beat an opponent that would play MUCH faster. What happens when you get to GenCon and have to play against Bill or me or Dean, and they are screaming through the game at full speed. Even if you play your normal pace, the game will probably go 2-3 rounds more in the 60 minutes than you are used to. If you don't often play games to that point of the conflict, you will be at a sore disadvantage in how to win at that point, because you don't have practice at that point in the game.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
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.
That's certainly an option.
Another thing i was thinking about would be to say something like "Players only gain gambit in rounds where no attacks were made, and no offensive abilities (Special Abilities or Force Powers that affect the opponent's pieces) were activated". That way, as long as you take one shot per round, no gambit for either player. If an opponent decides to try a lock-out, then the opponent can start racking up gambit. All it would take to deny gambit would be an Ugo attacking the other Ugo in the gambit zone.
Oh, and great example piece to pick in your suggestion above. Woot San Hill.