SWMGAMERS.com Forums
https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/

So how do we put a stop to this?
https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=7390		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  LoboStele [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Nivuahc wrote:
Less emphasis on points, more emphasis on carnage. In order to win, kill everything. Failing that, we resort to tallying points.


This is the crux of the discussion. How to get players to play the game, not being so worried about "points". You don't have to focus on the points, you focus on winning the game by defeating your opponent. If you defeat your opponent, you don't have to worry about points.
Author:  Gemini1179 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Reading through this article, I can how this has become a huge issue. If a "Last man standing" option is something that wouldn't help, and I can see that it probably wouldn't, why not have a situation where after Round 3 Gambit points are scored for each character in Gambit- and/or a 5 point loss for opponents who do not have a char in gambit if you do. This would penalize those for running and reward those for taking Gambit late in the game.

Hope this helps.
Author:  jdjersey [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
What about making it so that in order to get gambit, you have to have a piece worth at least 5 points in the area? So that if you run up for gambit with a mouse droid, you dont get it, but if you run up with a camaasi or something, you will. This would solve the 5-3 point problem (Which is still a considerable improvement on 5-0), and it would still encourage people to move to gambit.
Author:  NickName [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
bravo jersey.

That's both new, and pretty elegant.

I'd revise it to the following:

Score 5 points or the cost of the most expensive piece in gambit, whichever is LOWER.

Bill's reinforcements scoring 0 is maintained because they cost 0. Ugos net you 3 max. You need a 5 point or more character to get the full 5. If your opponent puts something in gambit and you kill it, you're even.

I don't know that it would help much on its own--you still have the existing suicide run map issues--but it's an idea that meets the requirements of simplicity and maintaining the spirit of the existing game mechanics. Definitely worth discussing pros/cons of what it would do.
Author:  billiv15 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Hmm, I think I like it. Well done Ben :) I will think on it some more and see if I can think of any abusive, or confusing reason not to do it this way.
Author:  fingersandteeth [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
thats the best idea i've heard so far.

People can still use high activations to fire a pointed piece into gambit but if it gets sniped after initiative then points are even.
Reduces tempo control and Lobot influence on gambit scoring and forces people to commit points to the center.

I like that idea a hell of a lot.

Thats NickNames extrapolation of Bens idea, just to be clear.
Author:  jonnyb815 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
well it will cut down on the really high act squads. makes them run a noble into gambit not just a mouse or uggie.
Author:  LoboStele [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Oooh, nice job Ben and Jason. That covers all the bases pretty well, even the idea of Reinforcements not counting for points. Stellar. At least keeps things from becoming the 5-3 lead as we discussed otherwise.

Makes keeping track of gambit a bit trickier though. I know with our local group, we typically just use a dice or something off to the side to indicate how many rounds of gambit we have accumulated. Then it's easy to just multiple that # of rounds by 5. With this system, you would be able to gain values of 3, 4 , or 5 points of gambit, thus needing either 3 separate dice (with obvious ways to know which is which type of point), or just write down the values themselves.

So, might require a little score-keeping change for some players, but overall not too painful I would imagine.
Author:  LoboStele [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
jonnyb815 wrote:
well it will cut down on the really high act squads. makes them run a noble into gambit not just a mouse or uggie.


Not necessarily. If you're on a map where you can get protected gambit, 3 points is better than no points. Or if you're in a situation where the opponent has no Accurate shooters and you can toss a Gran Raider out into gambit instead. Not that tough to include Nobles in your squad though. Most top squads either include one or have access to one anyways because of Palpatine on Throne or things like that.
Author:  NickName [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Or even 2 with a Gha mouse! :)

Yep. We track the same way and that was one of the two downsides that came to mind. I agree it's a minor strain on recordkeeping, but perhaps worth the sacrifice. The other is the same thing discussed about the no gambit reinforcements before that it may impact Lobot's place in the high-end metagame, but it could be a small sacrifice worth making for the greater good.

The interesting thing about nobles is you have to think about them very differently if you can't score gambit with them when brought in as a reinforcement. Reinforcements as a catchall for all your squad's weaknesses takes a real hit. (And perhaps that's not a bad thing.)
Author:  billiv15 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
NickName wrote:
Or even 2 with a Gha mouse! :)

Yep. We track the same way and that was one of the two downsides that came to mind. I agree it's a minor strain on recordkeeping, but perhaps worth the sacrifice. The other is the same thing discussed about the no gambit reinforcements before that it may impact Lobot's place in the high-end metagame, but it could be a small sacrifice worth making for the greater good.

The interesting thing about nobles is you have to think about them very differently if you can't score gambit with them when brought in as a reinforcement. Reinforcements as a catchall for all your squad's weaknesses takes a real hit. (And perhaps that's not a bad thing.)


I agree, I think it's a worthwhile trade off. The only real concern I could think of is reexplaining it to the LGS where it's never been a real issue, so people will think, "Why change it?" or "That's just more confusion for no reason", but overall, I think it would be worth it.

I will make that change in the other thread.
Author:  fingersandteeth [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
it does add complications but the game is a complicated one.

As for record keeping, well you should really tally points at the end of each round anyway. You could always just use a 20 sided dice to tally exact gambit score rather than use a 6 sided dice, but really its good practice to just keep score as you go, it only takes a few seconds to count up
Author:  dnemiller [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
ok Ben I like this great idea.

Thanks for making it pretty Jason...... great idea one of the best thrown out there yet.
Author:  dalsiandon [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
hum....
Author:  thereisnotry [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Yes, I also think this change is a great idea; it is oh so simple, and yet it makes a big difference:
-it is, now worth it to use higher-cost pieces to gain gambit, rather than just Ugs/Mice
-it is no longer worth it to camp Ugs in gambit, because you'll (likely) be losing activations and gaining no points advantage.

It doesn't end all of the slow play dilemma, but it does address part of it. We can call this Gambit change the "Jersey-Jason Adjustment." :D
Author:  billiv15 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
added this and a couple of the other minor points that have been brought up here to the other thread. Please take a moment and check out the changes (in bold) in the first post.
Author:  dalsiandon [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
Okay, but if we implement such a change as this, does it really matter if reinforcements score gambit at that point? After all what do most people bring in with reinforcements? Right now it's gambit fodder, and a little tech pieces here and there. Heck Lando DS got most of his play from Lobot at my FLGS.
That would change to the reverse I would think, it would be more utility figs, and not just gambit fodder. After all a Caamasi can't attack, and a Gran and an Uggie is not the most effective combatant.
Author:  I kill Gungans [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
I like that one, too. Score equal to points cost of a mini to a max. 5.

Regarding the score tracking I can only recommend writing everything down. In Magic this is common among players and big tournaments even require you to write the score down. Dice can always fall over and by tracking both players' points scores you can also control, if your opponent counts correctly. I have often observed that people wanted to collect points for Reinforcements of mine, just because they forgot about it.
Author:  billiv15 [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
dalsiandon wrote:
Okay, but if we implement such a change as this, does it really matter if reinforcements score gambit at that point? After all what do most people bring in with reinforcements? Right now it's gambit fodder, and a little tech pieces here and there. Heck Lando DS got most of his play from Lobot at my FLGS.
That would change to the reverse I would think, it would be more utility figs, and not just gambit fodder. After all a Caamasi can't attack, and a Gran and an Uggie is not the most effective combatant.


Well, this change includes that reinforcements can't claim gambit. So obviously, I would just go with this rule instead :)

And I very much look forward to the day when Lobot is used for other purposes. One thing I did enjoy about playing GOWK was that I didn't need to always go for activations. I would usually bring in the Jawa Scavenger instead, or a czerka when I had Rex/Dash, and so on. It was a nice change of pace to the usual 6 acts or BG and 3 acts. (that was the only thing I liked about playing GOWK lol). :)
Author:  fingersandteeth [ Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
it doesn't really matter what happens to Lobots usage.

Tayloring to the squad you face will or should never lose its appeal.

This change doesn't totally diminish the value of out activating someone, it just narrows the options that you can do when you do outactivate someone.

Lobots reinforcements shouldn't really be used to allow you to score free gambit, it should be to bring in the cheap fringe pieces that give you an advantage in COMBAT against the other team.

With this change, people will be more inclined to add jawas, Wicket, garindan, czerkas, twileks, BDGs, ughnaughts of all types, MTBS and even gonks (cor there are so many more figs you can use from the sub 20 fringe).
IMO that reterns Lobots reinforcement focus to what it should be which is keeping 20 points back for that crucial bit of tech rather than ensuring out activation and cheap points.
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/