LoboStele wrote:
Yep, that's the exact same thing that Dennis suggested in one of the other threads. It's not a terrible idea, and it definitely has some merit. I just think it creates as many problems as it solves. It would give the possibility of completely safe spaces on some maps because of how the gambit squares work out (Yavin Temple for instance). It also effectively gives cloaked to any piece sitting in the gambit zone. Caamasi nobles become HUGE because you could block opponents from getting into some gambit areas.
Personally, I just feel like it's a "change for change's sake" (sort of what you've been cautioning against in other threads, Dennis). Granted, I haven't play-tested it specifically, just run through some scenarios in my head. If there's a particular benefit to the idea that I might be missing, I'm all ears.
Well I didn't want to get into specifics, like who proposed it etc. etc.
I haven't really playtested the idea, either, but I am trying to look at this from the aspect of why gambit was introduced in the first place and why it doesn't really work the way it used to.
Yes, it was designed to prevent lock-out turtling Override wins. But then it became a focus to get to the build total, and Gambit sped that option up. Then mobile attack + twin attack characters came out - along with some maps that made getting Gambit difficult - and those two things, IMO, is when the slow play and stalling suddenly became prevalent. I think the game at that point became less about engagement and more about just scoring points. Cover the gambit zone with mobile shooters and pop anything that gets too close. It may not be in the original spirit of the game, and may not even be the way WotC would prefer the game to be played now. But these are the rules they created. Get the points lead and then retreat. Going for gambit is often times suicide that just widens the point gap.
Of all the ideas I've heard about refocusing on the spirit of engagement to "kill-em-all" I still like this idea best - though I completely agree it needs LOTS of playtesting.
BTW, here was the most recent definition of the suggestion:
A character within 4 squares of the center of the map cannot target or be targeted by a non-adjacent enemy more than 4 squares away from the center of the map.
Couple this with some additional gambit zones (the entire middle two center columns length-wise, for example) and it has the potential to be a big step in playing the game in the way that many prefer without taking away from people who just want to win on points.