Gambit Scoring in Star Wars Miniatures: Fact and Opinion
The goal of this article is to help new players, or veteran players that are new to bonus scoring, to understand both the basic mechanics of and rationale for Gambit scoring. Gambit scoring is referred to frequently on the message boards. Official sources explaining the rule exist, but they are tucked away within the Wizards of the Coast website. I hope that this article makes the Gambit rules more accessible and easy to understand, as well as allow a place to civilly discuss the rationale for and opinions about Gambit scoring.
Fact
What is Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring is a “bonus” scoring system that grants players additional points in a game, beyond eliminating enemy figures, if they meet a single specific goal.
How does it work?
Gambit scoring grants a player five victory points at the end of a round, if they have at least one figure within four squares of the center of the map. Additional figures near the center do not grant extra points. The points are the same as if a player eliminated an opposing figure of cost five. If the total of (Point cost enemy figures eliminated) + (Gambit points) = Squad Build Point Limit, then that player wins the game. For example, in a 100 point game, eliminating 80 points of enemy figures and scoring 20 gambit points by the end of a round would mean victory for that player as soon as the gambit points are given.
How do I find the center of a map and four squares from the center of that map?
Newer published maps have a white circle marking the center of a map:
You can easily find the center of an older map without the marks by counting from the edges of the map. The center is equidistant from each side. The following example shows how you would count to find the center counting from each side. Where all of the counts intersect is the center point. In this example the center is the point intersection of both “11” and “17” squares. It is marked with a red “x”.
Once you have found the center, whether it is a square or an intersection of lines, you count four squares as you would count range for a Range 6 or similar ability. Diagonals count as two. Terrain is ignored.
This website contains the SWM Floor Rules, with pictures showing the exact squares affected: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home. The link is at the bottom of the website page. I purposely did not provide a direct link to the actual document with the hopes that it will be updated in the near future, breaking a direct link. View Item 622 in the Floor Rules for the pictures.
A screen capture from that Document to save you time:
The following picture shows the very first map in the game, "Death Star", which has the center point as an intersection of lines. The Gambit scoring area is marked in red. Image courtesy of The Holocron
Not all maps work out perfectly, as evidenced by the Power Regulation Chamber or "Starship" map from the Revenge of the Sith Starter Set. Even numbered squares meet on the short side, but have an extra square between them on the long side. Image courtesy of The Holocron. Gambit scoring area is marked in red lines.
Where did you find these rules? They aren’t in the rulebook from the Starter Set!
They are not. Gambit scoring was introduced for competitive play. As a result they can be found in the official DCI Floor Rules for Star Wars Miniatures, available here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home. The link is at the bottom of the website page. Look at Item 622 a few pages into the rules.
Why was Gambit scoring introduced? – A Short History
Competitive DCI play began shortly after the game was introduced. It was immediately clear that specific rules could be abused by players to achieve victories that required very little engagement. An early culprit was the Override Special Ability. At the time, no counter existed to prevent a player from quickly eliminating an enemy figure at range, scoring a few easy points, and then locking all of their figures in a room. Once ten rounds passed, victory was achieved without any engagement beyond the first point-scoring shots. These victories were called “lockouts.” The game was not fun and technically nothing in the rules as written prevented those victory tactics.
In addition to lockout victories, the game also suffered from “camping”. Camping is gamer slang for designing squads that benefit from sitting in a corner or other easily defensible location and forcing the opponent to come to them. The opponent, if they choose to engage, suffers a tremendous disadvantage and is forced to choose between a boring drawn-out game and suicidal engagement. Once again camping was not prevented by rules. Instead it is a way to play the game in an unsportsmanlike manner within the loophole of not breaking any game rules.
Wizards of the Coast has a vested interest in creating games that are fun that people want to play. To address these issues in official competitive play, Gambit scoring was introduced as a foolproof way to force engagement.
Do I have to use Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring is an official DCI rule that is used in sanctioned DCI tournaments. Players that do not play DCI games do not need to use Gambit scoring. However, I will now make the case that any play group can benefit from Gambit scoring.
Opinion
The next section in the article will attempt to build a case for using Gambit scoring at any venue, whether in DCI tournaments or not. The intent here is not to suggest that any venue should do things the way I want to do them or to become a competitive venue. Rather, my experience is that gambit scoring is good for the game and good for fostering a positive play environment when approached with a positive attitude. Most people in our area, myself included, resisted Gambit scoring when it was first released. Now we can’t play the game without out. How did this happen? Read on.
What are the advantages of Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring carries with it a great deal of advantages for a play environment that anyone can benefit from.
1. Gambit scoring makes the game more fun for many people.
Gambit scoring forces engagement. To win the game with Gambit scoring, you have to be prepared to battle for the center of the map and eliminate points if your opponent has more gambit scores than you. This can make the game feel more like Star Wars to a lot of people. In the movies, battles are fierce. Many people want the game to be that way.
Gambit scoring can also have the advantage of making for shorter games. When an individual gets a lead on Gambit, the worst thing that an opponent can do tactically is to wait. For better or for worse they have to engage. This generally makes games go quicker.
2. Gambit helps to set a tone of fair play at your venue.
Gambit prevents under-handed tactics like lockouts and camping. I’ll discuss those more specifically in the next point. The real benefit of preventing under-handed tactics is that it sends a very clear signal to players trying to bring them to your venue. It says: “If you try to lockout or camp here, we have rules in play that will prevent you from being successful.” Why does this matter? It makes it so you don’t have to say anything! You get to avoid those awkward conversations. The rules themselves are doing the dirty work for you.
3. Gambit will make you a more careful (and later on better) player.
Later on in the article I’ll discuss how to play Gambit successfully. It takes a little bit of practice and an open-minded attitude. As you continue to practice with it, you’ll notice some changes in your play.
Most importantly, gambit requires you to pay attention to the score of the game. This is an aspect of the game that is often over looked by players, especially casual ones. Many people (I’m one of them!) don’t always want to expend the mental effort to keep track of points on the board. Many of us would prefer to just say to ourselves: “Kill lots of points!” and consider that a good victory strategy. The only problem with this is that, quite frequently, not counting the points can result in losses by just a few points in timed games. “I don’t play timed games and I don’t want the seriousness of having to count points. I’m a casual player!” It’s fine that you are a casual player. However, casual or competitive, most players like to win their games. I don’t think that’s a stretch. When you count points, you are in a better position to make tactical decisions. You make better choices of who to eliminate in what order. You often realize that an obvious target will get you points. But, by counting points you understand that there is a less obvious target that can win you the game! I’ll draw an analogy to chess. In chess, people that think multiple moves ahead do much better in the game. If you consider yourself a casual chess player, yet lose frequently, its probably because you have not yet developed the mental skill in chess of thinking ahead. You can!
Gambit scoring also really makes you think of the position of your figures on the board. You should not obsess over it (a common early Gambit player mistake). Later in this article I’ll discuss positioning strategies with Gambit. When you start using these strategies you realize that they generally improve your game. You become better at putting the right characters in the right places at the right times. You learn how to engage your opponent’s position and actively begin to prevent them from getting to the right squares from them.
Gambit scoring helps you to learn when to engage and when not to engage. There are certain times when it is important to engage right away. There are some times when it is important to wait. Gambit scoring helps you to see those decisions as important ones, mostly because you can’t be successful with Gambit without knowing at least partly how to do those things. I’ll say more about this in a later section.
4. Gambit scoring prevents “lockout” and “camping” styles of play.
One of the best benefits of Gambit scoring is that it makes “lockout” and “camping” ineffective strategies for winning. Most gamers that support fair play agree that these two styles sap fun from the game. Lockouts are not as much of a concern as they used to be in the game. Satchel Charge and other Special Abilities have been introduced that make it difficult for people to get lockouts. It is still a possibility though. Players that support lockout tactics usually adapt their tactics to take out any enemy pieces that could deal with Override. Even if you have Satchel Charge, it won’t do you any good if your opponent eliminates that piece and still has override. Gambit is a good solution because if you can secure a lead on Gambit, the opponent cannot win the game by merely killing a low cost piece and locking door. They are forced to engage and play on your terms.
Camping is not a viable strategy at all under Gambit scoring. Any lead that you gain by Gambit is not easily overcome by a camper. They can’t afford to sit there and let you score points. Camping has evolved with Gambit to include “Center Camping” in which a person utilizes walls near the center to be protected from their opponent while still gaining Gambit. While similar to camping in that it gives the person an advantage, camping the center does not give them the same advantages that camping corner of the board does. They have an advantage, but that advantage is not as extreme. It is far easier to engage someone in the center of many maps than it is in a corner. You may have to take fire to reach the center, but it is usually much less fire than you would take if approaching a camper in a corner.
What are the consequences of Gambit scoring?
We finished the last section with the feeling that there can be some consequences for Gambit. I’m of the opinion that most of these consequences are growing pains associated with a new format and psychological. Many of these are consequences only if you let them control you. The following consequences are common ones mentioned by both players new to gambit and veterans.
1. Gambit isn’t perfect. There is still camping.
It is not perfect. Many of the big objections that people bring to gambit is that it just creates a situation in which people camp a different portion of the board. As discussed above in “center camping” this is a very real possibility. I think the real culprit is specific maps that allow for center camping more than others. Players of this game have had a lot of input lately on selecting maps that are legal for DCI play. So, I am of the opinion that if we are doing a good job in selecting those maps, then center camping will not be as viable. Many of the newest maps that have been released have open centers, making it nearly impossible to successfully center camp. We are in the process of getting these maps legal for DCI play. This is a legitimate argument but I think that we have developed strong enough communication with WotC that we can address the issue.
2. Gambit can make the game go slower.
Wait a minute. Earlier I said that Gambit can make the game go faster. I think that there is a perception out there that the game can be slower with Gambit. It can be. When players camp the center or just surround the center in a stand-off, collecting Gambit behind walls, then both sides can tend to hesitate to engage.
I contend that the problem is not Gambit scoring. My personal experience is that the players are choosing to make the game go longer. Waiting isn’t really helping either side. You may be waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. A lot of the time all of that waiting doesn’t change the fact that you have to sometimes take damage to get the ball rolling. Experienced players realize that whether you are a casual player or competitive player, you have to take risks to win the game. People are choosing to not take risks when they stand off in the center.
3. Gambit forces people to battle for a lead and does not match certain play styles.
Most people don’t like to be “forced” to do anything and gamers are no exception. Gambit definitely benefits more aggressive play. Some players prefer to take their time getting to the center. They don’t like to have to change their play style to fit a bonus scoring system. I can sympathize with the difficulty of the change.
At the same time, I have had consistent experiences with players that don’t like the aggressive style of play supported by Gambit. I was one of them. Then, I started thinking about why it bothered me so much. I realized something. I realized that a big part of my objection was that I was engaging in mild camping. I didn’t even realize I was doing it. Why not? Tactically camping makes sense. In a real battle, setting up a strong defensive position and making the enemy fight on your terms is an advantage! So why shouldn’t we do that in this game? The short answer is that this game is not a military battle. People die in military battles. They are defending their families in many cases. Star Wars Miniatures should put fun as a higher priority than victory. Camping in a game may be a perfectly viable strategy, but it doesn’t foster fun. So, my problem was that my tactical mind was taking over and unconsciously doing things that were viable military strategies, but not very good at fostering fun.
I want to ask people that object to gambit to think about my story and think about their own. Why are you upset about Gambit? What is your play style really like? My experience is that many an intelligent individual camps without realizing they are doing so. They don’t realize they’re doing it because they haven’t reflected much on what they are doing. And it may not be very recognizable to their opponents because they don’t do it in an over-the-top sort of way. They don’t do it all the time. They may only do it when their squad is mismatched to the enemy squad. Or they may only do it when they have a map that gives them a disadvantage.
4. Gambit changes how I build squads.
Gambit will change how you build squads. Be careful. The most important decisions you need to make in building squads is how you will do damage and how you will prevent your squad from taking it. Collecting Gambit should never be the only goal or strength of a squad. I would go so far as to say that it should be a rare occasion in which the sole purpose of a single piece should be to collect gambit unless it does that role very well. I’ll give some options in a later section for selecting pieces for Gambit scoring. Many of these pieces serve dual roles of Gambit collector and primary damage dealer or other support.
Will you have to adapt your squad building to Gambit? Of course. A lot of changes involve building squads that don’t camp. To follow up on a point I made earlier. Players that camp subtly that don’t realize their doing it often build squads that are centered around camping. There are many reasons that they do it but rarely is it intentional. They may build the squad because it contains figures that they like. They may be unconsciously building to get a tactical advantage for camping but not realizing that camping is the advantage. When I have talked to players that do this they focus on the abilities on the individual cards and often don’t say anything about how the combination of pieces is supporting camping. So that I am very clear, these players aren’t realizing that they have been building in a way that supports camping. They aren’t consciously unfair in their play.
How do maps factor in here?
As I mentioned earlier, the maps that we play the game on make a big difference for Gambit. Certain maps make certain tactics more viable than others.
Starting side
Gambit makes certain maps have better starting sides than others. This leads players to refer to a map’s “good side” or bad side.” They are often referring to which starting side makes it easier to obtain or secure Gambit over another. The hardback Revenge of the Sith Starter map is a good example. In the example below, the map center is marked with a red “x” and the “good side” is the side at the bottom of the photo. Not only can a person starting on that side walk into gambit on the first turn, but they are also protected behind a wall. Gambit scoring is not the ultimate “problem.” The map is. I’m not saying that this is a bad map. I’m saying that it contributes to a negative perception towards Gambit that many players have.
Protected centers
The last map has a good starting side because of a protected center. A person can get in a safe position near the center of the map and essentially camp there and wait for the opponent to arrive. The opponent has to cross difficult terrain, slowing them down, and is a sitting duck for any shooter. I don’t doubt that this situation makes for less enjoyable games, but the good news is that many of the recently released maps really level the playing field allowing both sides to engage without a disadvantage. The recently released Taris map is a good example. The map center is marked with a red “x” and is an intersection of squares, not a whole square. This is a really good example of Gambit that is more difficult to obtain for both sides.
Of course, nothing is perfect and people will be quick to point out that Gambit scoring may be even here, but the map favors shooter squads. I don’t intend to get into a discussion of maps in general here. I want to emphasize maps in the context of Gambit only.
How do I play Gambit scoring successfully?
Build your squad.
I said earlier that it is important when building your squad that you build for damaging dealing and prevention first. That is ultimately how you win games. This game is all about damage exchange. That doesn’t mean that you can’t select figures that can serve as both damage dealers or support and be good at collecting gambit.
Some options:
The low-cost Gambit getter
These are your Ugnaught Demolitionists and Gran Raiders. Low cost figures can serve multiple roles. Ugnaughts can be gambit getters, activations, door blowers, and blockers. Gran Raiders can be everything but a door blower, and have the added advantage of Stealth. The point to focus on is that low cost Gambit getters allow you to not focus a lot of points on getting Gambit, and do not result in the loss of many points if they are eliminated.
The high-cost, big and beefy Gambit getter
Sometimes your main damage dealer is also your gambit getter. They have a high defense, a lot of hit points, and can also deal damage. Shooters with Mobile Attack can pop out from behind walls and end their turn behind the safety of the wall, while still collecting Gambit. Jedi have lots of hit points and are great ways to vie for control of a gambit location that shooters often can’t do. As shooters are more easily damaged close up they can’t hold Gambit in close proximity like Melee can. The general philosophy here is that you can control Gambit easily if your opponent has to engage with their whole squad just eliminate a Gambit piece.
The defensive Gambit getter
Star Wars Miniatures is heavily populated by figures with defensive abilities that work to stop people from damaging your squad. Evade, Lightsaber Deflect, Lightsaber Reflect, Force Bubble, Stealth, Super Stealth, and Cloaked are the top Special Abilities to sue for collecting Gambit defensively. In some cases, a figure can sit in line of sight of the enemy, in cover, and have no fear of retaliation. This really forces your opponent to engage and makes for exciting games. Another benefit of a “defensive” Gambit getter is that you are committing fewer points to the engagement range of your opponent, potentially giving you a tactical advantage in the end game. This comes with the risk that you won’t be able to muster support for your Gambit getter as quickly. It’s fun to work through the costs and benefits of how to engage your opponent in these scenarios.
The mobile Gambit getter
Pieces with high speeds can secure Gambit much faster than others. Pieces with normal speeds can often get to places normally out of their reach on the first turn through Special Abilities like Lift or Tow Cable. Flight combined with a higher than normal Speed is one of the easiest ways to get to Gambit. Flight allows you to ignore difficult terrain, pits, and low cover that would normally slow you down. The Dark Hellion Marauder on Swoop Bike is a cheap piece at a cost of ten that has a tremendous range for securing first round Gambit. It also has the benefit of Mobile Attack, so that it can pop out of a secured Gambit location, shoot down a low cost enemy Gambit getter and return to safety.
Override
Override can open up paths to Gambit squares that normally would not be accessible to figures in early turns. Opening a key door could allow one of your figures to get a place that will give you an early lead on Gambit. Many experienced players have a lot of fun in finding early routes to Gambit that their opponents don’t expect, surprising them.
Have fun experimenting with combinations that can help secure Gambit. Always remember that getting Gambit doesn’t do you any good if you can’t deal damage to the enemy and work through the damage dealt to your own figures.
Play aggressively, but carefully.
The cool thing about gambit in my mind is that it really forces players to know when to wait and when to engage. Gambit is not about throwing caution into the wind and charging at the enemy squad. So when do you engage and when do you wait? You engage when you can get ahead and stay ahead on points. You wait when you are already ahead on points and gain an advantage by waiting. It’s obviously not that simple. At some level, practice is the only way you can really learn when to engage and when to wait. I am confident that Gambit does have people engage sooner than caution would normally tell them to, and that makes for more fast paced games.
Position carefully to control the center.
Part of playing Gambit successfully is not only being able to get Gambit yourself, but to position your figures to deny your opponent Gambit. What fun would it be if your opponent didn’t have to work for victory? Part of this is knowing the map you are playing on. Part of it is knowing what your pieces are capable of and what your opponents can do. Part of it is knowing when to engage and when not engage. Part of it is knowing how much to risk and how much not to risk. Gambit can help you improve with all of these! In short, I think that Gambit is really about all the things that we love about critical thinking in this game. I could say a great deal about many of these things, but at the end of the day practice is what will be your best teacher in improving.
Don’t obsess over Gambit!
One of the biggest mistakes players make when they start playing with Gambit scoring is that they obsess so heavily over obtaining Gambit that they ignore already sound tactical understandings they had used before. This is true of learning any new aspect of a game. It takes time to learn the ins and outs of the format. I really think that that investment in time and feeling vulnerable is really what a lot of people object to with regards to Gambit. When you first play it, there is a period in which you are a slightly worse player than you were before you started playing it. Some people take that as a challenge work towards improving. Some people object, fold their arms in defiance, and are determined to never change again. It usually isn’t a surprise when those players stop playing Gambit, or simply descend into a spiral of not improving at the game.
Attitude is everything. If you go into Gambit scoring with the attitude that it is bad and not fun, guess what? It won’t be fun. If you go into with the attitude that you can become a better player and prevent un fair play at your venue by adopting it, then you’ll have a much better experience.
You don’t need to score Gambit points every round. In fact, the best piece of advice that I give to players starting out with Gambit is to 1) Be aware that it is there. 2) Place eliminating opponent pieces as a higher priority than Gambit 3) Be aware of whether your opponent is ahead of you or not on Gambit. 4) Try to start tracking points in your head, or on paper. That’s a lot of stuff to keep track of, but it is only the beginning of the depth of how far you can go into Gambit scoring.
In Summary
I hope that I’ve made a pretty good case here as to why any play group should think about using Gambit scoring. I want to end the article with an assertion that I believe very deeply and is always a hot area of contention here. There is equal value in causal play and tournament play. I do not think that tournament players are any better than casual players and I do not think that Gambit scoring is only a rule for tournament play. I think that Gambit scoring could be very useful to casual players that approach it with a positive attitude.
A Discussion Starter
I’m sure people will find a lot to talk about regarding Gambit scoring. One specific question that has been broached here that hasn’t been extensively discussed is: Should Gambit scoring be included in the rulebook? I know that there are many good arguments for and against it. I look forward to input on any aspect of the article and I hope you find it useful! :D
It's so comprehensive that rather than just linking to the DCI page to see what squares are affected I'd show a picture.
And I'd show the exception situation as well with a picture of Starship counting out its odd number of squares, and a then a pic of the Gambit squares on it.
It's so comprehensive that rather than just linking to the DCI page to see what squares are affected I'd show a picture.
And I'd show the exception situation as well with a picture of Starship counting out its odd number of squares, and a then a pic of the Gambit squares on it.
Was gonna suggest the same things. I would show a pic of a "normal map" and of "Starship" with the Vassal yellow over the gambit areas.
Otherwise, another great one, chalk it up on the thread index please TS
Done. I didn't put in numbers counting the squares. 1) People can do it themselves after seeing the first one. 2) I'm no graphic artist and that first one took me a really long time to do.
Looks good. A minor nitpick if you're feeling saucy... I think it might be better to rearrange that section a bit for clarity.
1. Show counting screenshot. 2. Explain that it can be a point (as in the pic) or a square depending on map and explain how to count from a point (diagonal is 2). 3. Show Gambit screencap from Floor Rules 4. Show screenshots of maps with Gambit outlines.
Quick question...because of my misunderstanding of how scoring works with gambit...
say I have a 199 pt squad, and my enemy has a 200 pt, I Kel-Dor suicide killing my last piece and his both, and we have equal gambit...who wins? Or is it a tie?
Quick question...because of my misunderstanding of how scoring works with gambit...
say I have a 199 pt squad, and my enemy has a 200 pt, I Kel-Dor suicide killing my last piece and his both, and we have equal gambit...who wins? Or is it a tie?
say I have a 199 pt squad, and my enemy has a 200 pt, I Kel-Dor suicide killing my last piece and his both, and we have equal gambit...who wins? Or is it a tie?
What you do is check to see, at the end of the round in which someone exceeds the build point total in total scored points (kills plus gambit) who's ahead.
In this case, you've got a Kel Dor Bounty hunter left (13 points) and no one's won the game yet, so you've bot got a max of 10 gambit points. So assuming everyone has 10 gambit points, at the beginning of that phase, the score looks like:
Now, since there are no unactivated pieces left on either side of the board, the round ends. Since a player has scored more than the build total (200) in points, it also means that the game ends (since a game ends only at the end of a round). At this point, we compare the scores, and you win, 210 to 209.
What you do is check to see, at the end of the round in which someone exceeds the build point total in total scored points (kills plus gambit) who's ahead.
In this case, you've got a Kel Dor Bounty hunter left (13 points) and no one's won the game yet, so you've bot got a max of 10 gambit points. So assuming everyone has 10 gambit points, at the beginning of that phase, the score looks like:
Now, since there are no unactivated pieces left on either side of the board, the round ends. Since a player has scored more than the build total (200) in points, it also means that the game ends (since a game ends only at the end of a round). At this point, we compare the scores, and you win, 210 to 209.
Awesome, that's what I thought, and yeah, that's exactly what happened. I had a Kel-Dor against Yobuck, had YoBuck down to 40 HP and he AoO'ed me, I went boom, we had same Gambit. Thanks! :D (I beat a YoBuck squad thanks to Gambit...woooo! hahahaha)
@klecser: I think you forgot to mention Swap CE's as a method of getting quick Gambit. Pieces could be swapped straight into Gambit, or you could swap-in a Mobile Gambit collector.
Wedge772 wrote:
No mention of my personal favourite, the Golan in gambit?
I prefer placing SuperStealth in the Gambit zone :D With the Thrawn/Mas/Nyna combo, it is actually very easy to get a shooter in Gambit - you could swap in a Storm Commando with a Gran who has already moved into the Gambit zone...
Nya, nya, nya! I can shoot you from Gambit but you can't touch me!
IMHO, Gambit should be made mandatory. Some people choose to ignore it, and as such, play slowly (yes, there is a player at my LGS whose matches always go to time. But we're too nice to give him a bashing - a rules thingie would settle the matter) :P
Klecser, this is a great article. Well written, and thought out. I completely agree with your assessment that gambit is needed, and a welcome addition to the game. I think it could be enhanced with a few easy tweaks, but who knows if that will ever happen.
However, I respectfully disagree with some other parts of this article which I will state now (and I am sure be attacked for).
I will start out by saying I am not a camper, or someone who likes to win lockout games. I will however state that going along with your article if you build a squad that is easily defeated by these tactics it is your own fault. Anyone who tries to corner camp with gambit is conceding the game, and if you don't have some type of door control in your army you are making the game much harder for yourself as a good player can make your advance much harder on certain maps. I agree with your assessment that squad building is key.
The issue I have with your article is the center camping argument, and what is truly unsportsmanlike. If either player pushed to the center of the map in a strategically good setup, and happens to get a point lead in the process, why is it unsportsmanlike for them to wait in the middle for the other player to engage. They have pushed the action to that point, and will win at time if the other player does not engage. If the only way that player loses is to get very unlucky with dice rolls (everyone has been there), or pushes and allows the other player to recover why is it unsportsmanlike to camp in the center?
I agree the overall point of this game is to have fun, but I think it is wrong for anyone to label any legal tactic unsportsmanlike. Different players may find different strategies the most fun. There are players in my local venue who will push early, but as soon as something dies their entire strategy changes to not allowing the other person to kill off their entire squad or hit point total before time. They definitely camp at that point, but they enjoy that. What is to say another player may not enjoy the hunt of trying to kill off that player? Unsportsmanlike to me is cheating, being rude or offensive, or something that violates DCI or venue rules. Other than that it is in the eye of the beholder how this games is played for fun.
I guess overall I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to state that any legal tactic is unsportsmanlike because it is legal, and some player may find it fun. Dictating to any player that they can't play the way they like although legal makes the game less fun for that player so where do you draw the line? I won't argue that having more aggressive battle is entertaining, but some players don't find that fun. I know several who look at this game more like chess, and would rather try to keep the other player from even scoring. That can be truly difficult, but it fun to some players.
I will end by stating that I do not intend any of this post as a personal attack to Klecser or anyone else. I do think that the community as a whole needs to realize that everyone has different play styles, and as long as they are legal according to the rules they are not wrong or unsportsmanlike!
I think some may disagree with you but I doubt there will be any attacking you.
But I don't even disagree particularly. And I'm not sure klecser would either as I don't see him calling any tactic unsportsmanlike. He does say certain camping tactics are not considered particularly fun and the rules changed to prevent them (for the most part) but I don't see anything beyond that. Do you mind explaining or quoting the part of the article that gave you that impression?
The issue I have with your article is the center camping argument, and what is truly unsportsmanlike. If either player pushed to the center of the map in a strategically good setup, and happens to get a point lead in the process, why is it unsportsmanlike for them to wait in the middle for the other player to engage. They have pushed the action to that point, and will win at time if the other player does not engage. If the only way that player loses is to get very unlucky with dice rolls (everyone has been there), or pushes and allows the other player to recover why is it unsportsmanlike to camp in the center?
I apologize that I was not clear on that part. I do not think camping the center is unsportsmanlike. I think that there are many who think that it is, and so I included it in the article so that their opinion could get in there. My personal opinion is that "camping the center" isn't really unsportsmanlike because you are close enough to engage, you are just choosing not to. My personal experience is that a lot of games in which one side camps the center, they are not delaying for victory, they are delaying because they are afraid to engage. In short, they are just delaying the inevitable. This isn't unsportsmanlike in this case, its just a waste of time. Experienced players often know when their situation isn't going to improve, so they just take the plunge to get things moving, for better or for worse.
Does that make my intentions a little clearer?
I agree the overall point of this game is to have fun, but I think it is wrong for anyone to label any legal tactic unsportsmanlike. Different players may find different strategies the most fun. There are players in my local venue who will push early, but as soon as something dies their entire strategy changes to not allowing the other person to kill off their entire squad or hit point total before time. They definitely camp at that point, but they enjoy that. What is to say another player may not enjoy the hunt of trying to kill off that player? Unsportsmanlike to me is cheating, being rude or offensive, or something that violates DCI or venue rules. Other than that it is in the eye of the beholder how this games is played for fun.
You bring up some good points draellix. This isn't intended to be a comprehensive guide of any situation you would encounter that could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. There is a reason why we have judges making subjective decisions in games. There is no cut and dried automatic response to any situation. I included info about camping in the article mostly because it CAN be a concern (note CAN does not equal WILL) and there are groups of players that think that any sort of center camping is unsportsmanlike and rude. I don't agree with that, but I wanted to get their opinion reflected in the article so people could see both sides of an issue.
I guess overall I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to state that any legal tactic is unsportsmanlike because it is legal, and some player may find it fun. Dictating to any player that they can't play the way they like although legal makes the game less fun for that player so where do you draw the line? I won't argue that having more aggressive battle is entertaining, but some players don't find that fun. I know several who look at this game more like chess, and would rather try to keep the other player from even scoring. That can be truly difficult, but it fun to some players.
Lockouts, while legal, are not fun. If a player "enjoys" locking out people for victory, then the problem isn't the game, its that player's attitude towards play. At some point we have to take a stand and say: "we want you to have fun, but just because something is legal in a game, and fun for one, doesn't mean that it is fun for MOST."
Another way to look at it: A player likes some legal aspect of the game. The designers are human and make mistakes. That player happens to like something that makes the game really NOT fun for a lot of people. Does it being legal protect that player even though he or she is making other players miserable? My contention that that player should be discouraged from doing that and that is unsportsmanlike. I'm not saying they are being MALICIOUS. Unsportsmanlike conduct should be treated like the word "ignorant" in some cases, IMO. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you are stupid. Yet, in modern venacular, many people take it that way. Unsportsmanlike conduct is like that in my mind. You can be unsportsmanlike and not intend it. Once you are aware of it, you should do something about it. These situations are complex and just because some one does something "unsportsmanlike" does not mean they should be judged as an "unsportsmanlike player". I view those as two different things. So, I see a difference between the case in which someone intends to do it and does not. We shouldn't label someone badly just because they do something unsportsmanlike. If they do, its how they respond to it that matters.
So, I guess we disagree on that point.
I will end by stating that I do not intend any of this post as a personal attack to Klecser or anyone else. I do think that the community as a whole needs to realize that everyone has different play styles, and as long as they are legal according to the rules they are not wrong or unsportsmanlike!
I did not take it as an attack. At the same time, I think our disagreement is in the labelling. I'm not judging people. Certain actions are unsportsmanlike under certain circumstances and we need to take them on a case-by-case basis. Good people, quite often, do unsportsmanlike things that they don't intend. That doesn't excuse it from being wrong. I would hope that what is most important here is that if you doing something makes it unfun for other players, at some level it doesn't MATTER if it is fun for you. We want EVERYBODY to have fun, and if giving up certain tactics is what is necessary for EVERYBODY to have fun, then that is a compromise I am willing to make.
Edit: So, in the interest of making my meaning clearer, I looked up the definition of sportsmanship (American Heritage):
sports·man·ship (spôrts'mən-shĭp', spōrts'-) Pronunciation Key n. 1. The fact or practice of participating in sports or a sport. 2. Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy (emphasis mine), striving spirit, and grace in losing.
The courtesy is the key element here. You can do something within the rules, but whether you like it or not, if it makes other people miserable, it violates the "courtesy" aspect above. That doesn't make you a bad person. It means that a person needs to show empathy for their fellow players, within reason.
This is also why I think gambit could be played at any venue if the ATTITUDE towards it is positive and open. Gambit itself could be unsportsmanlike conduct if your venue is violently opposed to it. Its all subjective and depends upon local environment.
Nickname this is the quote that I am referring to:
klecser wrote:
[Once again camping was not prevented by rules. Instead it is a way to play the game in an unsportsmanlike manner within the loophole of not breaking any game rules.
Klecser I am not trying to advocate for lockout games, and will agree with you that they can be very frustrating. However, where do you draw the line. A player could be considered unsportsmanlike or using lockout tactics if they use overide to prevent the other player from gaining gambit late in a game that would have tied the score. Is this wrong, no. Is this unsportsmanlike no. The other player is not prepared to deal with the tactic, which is their own fault.
I am not advocating camping either, but I also won't ever agree that if you are in the center with good setup and a point lead that you should take any action that puts you in a bad position to lost the game (unecessary risks). I agree with your assessment that some of our disagreement is over labelling, which never ends up good .
However I find I can't completely agree with your unsportsmanlike comments, even when you provided the definition. IMO it is not being discourteous (unsportsmanlike) to exploit an edvantage that you specifically built your squad to use. If the other player is not prepared to combat that tactic why should you have to avoid it or be unsportsmanlike. I would have this same argument in any game or sport.
This is like saying in basketball if you are 7" tall you should not post up in the middle if the other teams tallest player is 6'6" because it is unsportsmanlike. That is ridiculous. I would agree that if the score got out of hand that you should remove the tall player from the game, but that would be once you had the game definitively won. You stated in your post that most players play to win so why would you ignore an advantage that gives you the best chance.
I guess I am saying that taking advantage of a legal tactic, even if it is detrimental or frustrating to your opponent, should not be considered unsportsmanlike. Everyone has the same ability to build a squad that can use these tactics. I am sure everyone who has played this game has been frustrated over a lockout game, or some other tactic at some point. I think this line of thinking is walking a very thin line. From the same point of view you are taking you could say that Yoda should not gallop in the case where the other player has only figures that will almost surely die with each of his gallop attacks because it is not courteous, and that play does not have a movement breaker of his own to use to his own means.
I agree with what I believe is your overall sentiment that this game should be played for fun, but there is really no legal tactic that can't be countered if you build a good squad. I have played lockout games and lost. Yes it was frustrating, but it provided perspective that I would not be caught that way again. It was just like when I had the activations debate with all of you about a year ago. If you really wanted to push it you could say that bringing in high activations is unsportsmanlike because you stretch out the game, and take an unfair advantage. I don't feel that way, and I will admit that I have come around to the activation idea (CREDIT HERE TO BILLIV15, KLECSER, NICKNAME), but in my local meta high activations just adds insult to injury in most games. I submit that by different players using legal tactics (even though they may not be even the majority's opinion) makes everyone better overall players because you have to use better critical thinking skills to build better squads.
It also seems like if players are getting so upset over losing to specific tactics, and don't take steps in building better squads to overcome these tactics then complain that tactics are unsportsmanlike, that they are violating the "grace in losing" part of your definition. IMO play this game to have fun and be competitive, which encompasses all legal options. Then sportsmanship comes in that you are gracious whether you win or lose.
Ah, I see. Klecser is talking about before gambit there, not after gambit.
And I agree with you. Those were the rules at the time and at that time I would never call a player unsportsmanlike for using legal tactics within the rules even if I would choose personally not to use them.
So I agree I would make the same point with different wording. This is an aspect of the game design that didn't work well with the intent of the game. It's a combat game and engaging in combat should be rewarded over avoiding engagement. Camping in your starting area and lockout tactics run counter to the design/expectations and that's why so many people find these elements "not fun".
I can understand having the rules change, or adding new rules to meet the expectations of the game designers. I have no issue with that whatsoever because as these changes are made what is legal changes.
I understand the intent is engagement, and it is what is the most fun. I myself am an agressive player, but against a player who is hoping I will be agressive I change tactics. I think a player should be prepared to play against any legal tactic. If pressing engagement is suicidal or the only way you lose a game because of your current point situation or gambit, why do it? How is it unsportsmanlike to camp the center in a strategic position, and force the other player to be the aggressor?
You can abuse almost any tactic in this game if you truly want to (voluntarily or involuntarily), but since everyone can use the same tactics I don't understand how anyone can say that any legal tactic is unsportsmanlike.
Camping with gambit as you and Klecser stated is not an issue with gambit because a player choosing that is more or less conceding. However, at that point if you choose not to engage and just win by gambit are you being unsportsmanlike for camping as well? Not in my opinion, but it could be argued.
Lockouts however can still occur even if the player isn't hiding. For example, if one player has a squad with multiple override, and the other play doesn't have door control, he/she can easily dictate on some maps the exact route the other play will have to approach from. Setting up well can make this a death trap. Now this is not lockout in the old sense, but it is still locking out a large percentage of the board from the other player forcing them to lose by advancing or waiting. This is not unsportsmanlike it is smart play. This is definitely frustrating to the opponent (I have been on the wrong side of this several times), but the key is to learn from it and make sure future squads are not caught by the same tactic again.
Nickname I think you have made the point I am trying to and obviously failing to. If a tactic is legal, the player using it is not being unsportsmanlike even if it is a tactic you personally would not use due to personal opinion. In any sense of the word unsportsmanlike has a negative connotation. I think having even a gentlemen/women's agreement that certain tactics will not be used is unsportsmanlike because it removes legal tactics from the game. I don't know how you can apply any negative label to legal tactics is my overall point.
Klecser I am not trying to advocate for lockout games, and will agree with you that they can be very frustrating. However, where do you draw the line. A player could be considered unsportsmanlike or using lockout tactics if they use overide to prevent the other player from gaining gambit late in a game that would have tied the score. Is this wrong, no. Is this unsportsmanlike no.
I think we are more in agreement than you think. You draw the line when a person is being malicious and unfair. It is and always will be a subjective call. I'm referring to people that lockout just to be jerks and make people feel bad. All of your examples are examples of good exceptions, and players need to be aware of cases when it simply makes sense to wait and when it is unfairly exploiting a game mechanic issue.
The other player is not prepared to deal with the tactic, which is their own fault.
This is true with the CURRENT state of the game, but wasn't always true. Before these changes, there is NOTHING anyone could do to prevent a lockout if you had the wrong squad.
I am not advocating camping either, but I also won't ever agree that if you are in the center with good setup and a point lead that you should take any action that puts you in a bad position to lost the game (unecessary risks).
If you read the whole article you'll note that I specifically ADVOCATE not rushing when you have a point lead in Gambit. I really think that you are seeing absolutism where I intend none.
However I find I can't completely agree with your unsportsmanlike comments, even when you provided the definition. IMO it is not being discourteous (unsportsmanlike) to exploit an edvantage that you specifically built your squad to use. If the other player is not prepared to combat that tactic why should you have to avoid it or be unsportsmanlike. I would have this same argument in any game or sport.
I think you might think that I think people can be sore losers as well. I'm trying to argue for being good winners AND good losers. This is not intended to suggest that people that make you lose are bad. Trust me, my opinion on this matter is much more sophisticated than that.
This is like saying in basketball if you are 7" tall you should not post up in the middle if the other teams tallest player is 6'6" because it is unsportsmanlike. That is ridiculous.
Of course it is. I'm not saying that. I think what you're missing here is that there are players out there that PURPOSELY lockout and camp BECAUSE it makes people feel bad. Those are the worst cases. But that isn't to say that you can't have a better play environment by CHOOSING not to use tactics even though they are legal for you to use.
Example: A new kid at your venue doesn't have override or Satchel Charge in his squad. You snipe a gran raider, lock the door, and say: "Oh, game over. And its well within the rules do so." Is that legal for you to do? Sure. Does it PROMOTE A GOOD PLAY ENVIRONMENT? It does not. I'm of the opinion that anything that doesn't promote a positive play environment is unsportsmanlike. Its IRRELEVANT that its legal.
You stated in your post that most players play to win so why would you ignore an advantage that gives you the best chance.
Because it isn't about winning in the end. Its about having fun. You can't have a successful venue if people can't have fun.
I guess I am saying that taking advantage of a legal tactic, even if it is detrimental or frustrating to your opponent, should not be considered unsportsmanlike.
I think this is where we seem to be at odds. "frustrating" is very different from "demoralizing". I'm really talking about malicious extreme circumstances more than anything else.
From the same point of view you are taking you could say that Yoda should not gallop in the case where the other player has only figures that will almost surely die with each of his gallop attacks because it is not courteous, and that play does not have a movement breaker of his own to use to his own means.
I think you're reading words that aren't actually there. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that writing game mechanics is not easy. I'm saying that we, as players, have the intelligence to recognize when a tactic is fair, and when it probably should not have been in the game the way it was supposed to be in the first place. Lockouts and camping, while legal, do not make for the game that the designers intended. Nobody INTENDS to make a game where someone can do one thing and win the game in three minutes.
I agree with what I believe is your overall sentiment that this game should be played for fun, but there is really no legal tactic that can't be countered if you build a good squad. I have played lockout games and lost. Yes it was frustrating, but it provided perspective that I would not be caught that way again.
I'm a teacher. I'm not saying that toil towards a goal can't be important for developing understanding.
It was just like when I had the activations debate with all of you about a year ago. If you really wanted to push it you could say that bringing in high activations is unsportsmanlike because you stretch out the game, and take an unfair advantage....I submit that by different players using legal tactics (even though they may not be even the majority's opinion) makes everyone better overall players because you have to use better critical thinking skills to build better squads.
Do you see this as people are unsportsmanlike or not?
Your post seems to me to lean that way. I'm not saying that people are "bad people" of they use those tactics. I'm saying that they need to understand the fine line between fun and not fun and actively pursue the "fun" side whenever possible.
I see this as that there are MANY levels of unsportsmanlike behavior, all the way from "not a big deal at all" to "you should be excommunicated from the sport forever. Given that, when I train new players on how to play the game best, I don't lock them out or camp them to "teach" them play better, just like I don't punch people to help them understand the nature of physical abuse. An extreme example, but apt, IMO. Not everyone needs to experience something to understand that exists. What we DO make sure to do is mention counters and why it is important to build them into squads. That way people get what the problem is and how to face it, without having to actually experience the bad feelings associated with it.
Man, after reading this thread I feel like I must be damned to hell for how bad I beat the new player in a tourny last week where I annihilated him and didn't let him even attack me I better go repent
Nice thread. The content is good and so far the debate has been civil.
After reading through it all, I find myself wondering if Draellix is referring more to tourny play and klescer is talking about "fun" play. I know Draellix quite well and he would be the first person to try to teach the game to newer players in a sporting way. In fact I say draellix recently tell an opponent in a tourny that he could lock the door on the other player locking all his opponents pieces in the room with no hope of ever getting out and the game would be over. He showed the player what could have happened and then said that would not be fun for either of them and allowed him to use the doors the whole game. Now if I had been the one to make the mistake of no door control, I would expect my opponent to lock me in and win. It would mean I played poorly and deserved to lose. And it would have been sporting of my opponent to do it.
I think the real question here should be are you referring fun games or tourny games? Klecser and Draellix please reply for sure.
I can totally see being nice in fun games, but in tourny rules are rules and as long as they are followed all is fair in love and war.
I think the real question here should be are you referring fun games or tourny games? Klecser and Draellix please reply for sure.
I'm not talking about fun vs. tourney as much as I'm talking about experienced vs. unexperienced players.
I guess what I'm saying is that making decisions about these issues is subjective and you can handle this in a way that will encourage people to come back to your venue and you can handle it in a way that you can't.
Example: Something could be normal and accepted for experienced players and unsportsmanlike conduct against new players.
Let's say that I have the ability to lock someone out who is an experienced player and knows the ropes and is presently ill-equipped to handle the current situation. Do I lock them out? YES. Do they or I feel bad about it? NO. For all the reasons you guys mentioned. Those people know better, and I'm not going to go easy on them just because they are unprepared.
Same situation but a person who has never played the game before. Do I lock them out? NO. Should I feel bad and will they feel bad if I did? YES. That isn't healthy for encouraging them to come back, regardless of whether it is allowed in the rules. Am I doing them a disservice by not showing them the harsh possibilities of the game? NO, because if I do what hop mentioned and point out where it could be a problem, they learn without having to experience any hurt feelings.
I'm not advocating a "one size fits all, do this every time" approach to the game. Game social interactions are more complex than that. In fact, I appreciate you two posting because this whole discussion has shown pretty clearly how subjective all of these interactions are. We're talking about game EQUITY here, not equality. In other words, what is unsportsmanlike conduct against a new player isn't necessarily the same against an experienced player that knows better.
The target audience for all of my articles has always been the casual player first. In that regard, a lot of what I say is intended to inform them of some things to watch out for, not make a value judgment on veterans.
I think Hop nailed it. Drae is talking about competitive tournament play, and Klecser a more relaxed tournament play. I don't think the two of them are really disagreeing.
I think Klecser in a big tournament, would no hesitate to use override if it gave him an advantage, nor would he get angry at his opponent for doing so to him.
But I also think he is more trying to convince less competitive venues to use Gambit rules to help deal with some of these issues.
Personally, I don't think anyone is advocating doing this to the local 8 year old. I know Draelix isn't anyways. What I often do in those situations is similar to what Hop said Drae does. I show them what I "could do" and try to help them understand how they can prevent that later, usually after the game. I think Klecser would do the same.
Now, you get me into a tournament, and I am playing Matt, you better believe I am locking him up, throwing away the key, and laughing at him for making such a silly mistake (Obviously we are friends, so don't take the wrong way).
And anyone who claims there is some "moral" high ground in following some artificial set of sportsmanship rules is just fooling themselves. You don't have to be a rules nazi, a jerk, a guy trying to take advantage of their opponent's outside of the rules of the game. But any legal strategy that you use, any legal squad you use, any legal pieces you use are legitimate, and your sportsmanship is not questionable from that behavior. Anyone who questions it, is wrong, and is in all liklihood, being a bad sport themselves by being a sore looser.
Grace in winning and losing are both equal on the part of the sportsmanship considerations. Calling someone a bad sport for using a legal rule, is wrong in this particular setting. If you do, you are a "scrub" - a reference to Sirlin's great article "Playing to Win".
I don't think the two of them are really disagreeing.
I also don't think that.
I think Klecser in a big tournament, would no hesitate to use override if it gave him an advantage, nor would he get angry at his opponent for doing so to him.
Correct, on both counts.
But I also think he is more trying to convince less competitive venues to use Gambit rules to help deal with some of these issues.
Yes.
Personally, I don't think anyone is advocating doing this to the local 8 year old. I know Draelix isn't anyways. What I often do in those situations is similar to what Hop said Drae does. I show them what I "could do" and try to help them understand how they can prevent that later, usually after the game. I think Klecser would do the same.
I would.
Now, you get me into a tournament, and I am playing Matt, you better believe I am locking him up, throwing away the key, and laughing at him for making such a silly mistake (Obviously we are friends, so don't take the wrong way).
I got locked out last tourney I played and I DESERVED it. Rookie mistake. I wasn't angry, I was ashamed. But all in good fun of course.
And anyone who claims there is some "moral" high ground in following some artificial set of sportsmanship rules is just fooling themselves. You don't have to be a rules nazi, a jerk, a guy trying to take advantage of their opponent's outside of the rules of the game. But any legal strategy that you use, any legal squad you use, any legal pieces you use are legitimate, and your sportsmanship is not questionable from that behavior. Anyone who questions it, is wrong, and is in all liklihood, being a bad sport themselves by being a sore looser.
I may just be confusing sportsmanship and "positive play environment". I don't see them as mutually exclusive and I know you aren't saying that. Sheesh I just want people to treat people well so they come back! :P
Grace in winning and losing are both equal on the part of the sportsmanship considerations. Calling someone a bad sport for using a legal rule, is wrong in this particular setting. If you do, you are a "scrub" - a reference to Sirlin's great article "Playing to Win".
I'm calling them a bad sport when they rub it in. Maybe that's what I should have clarified. The ACT itself isn't the problem, if its a legal move. The "sore winner" is the issue I'm more talking about.
Edit: After thinking about it some more, I can see where people would think that I unfairly portray camping in the article. I've witnessed camping being a primary VEHICLE of bad sportsmanship. That doesn't make the act of camping itself bad. I even say in the article that strategically, camping makes sense. It is when it is misused SOCIALLY that we have a problem.
People need to be good winners AND good losers. The article should not be taken as an excuse for a person to be a sore loser when someone camps them.
Example: A new kid at your venue doesn't have override or Satchel Charge in his squad. You snipe a gran raider, lock the door, and say: "Oh, game over. And its well within the rules do so." Is that legal for you to do? Sure. Does it PROMOTE A GOOD PLAY ENVIRONMENT? It does not. I'm of the opinion that anything that doesn't promote a positive play environment is unsportsmanlike. Its IRRELEVANT that its legal.
I agree with you on this, and as Hop stated I have helped new players by pointing this out and not taking the lockout win. I am all for helping new, or inexperienced, players to make the overall game better.
Because it isn't about winning in the end. Its about having fun. You can't have a successful venue if people can't have fun.
I agree that people need to have fun, but the goal of any game is to win. I think you even stated that in the beginning of your initial post. I submit that if people learn from tactics that beat them the level of play increases making it even more enjoyable.
I'm saying that we, as players, have the intelligence to recognize when a tactic is fair, and when it probably should not have been in the game the way it was supposed to be in the first place...Nobody INTENDS to make a game where someone can do one thing and win the game in three minutes.
I think this is a very gray area walking a very thin line. You could argue that Mas Amedda is unfair due to what he provides, or several other figures. I personally think each figure is fine, and should be played as created. I agree that nobody wants a game that ends in three minutes, but intentionally avoiding legal tactics to allow people to compete is wrong too. I think that if almost all of the local players in my area went to GenCon that none of them would win a game. I know that sounds harsh, but with the exception of about 4-5 players the rest would just be outmatched. I have been trying to help these players understand how to play better, but part of that is them seeing legal ways that some opponent could beat them.
Do you see this as people are unsportsmanlike or not?
I am not sure what point you are asking this about, but I do not see any legal tactic as unsportsmanlike. If I misplay something, and get locked out of most of the board due to losing a figure or not building a good enough army, that is something I need to learn and be gracious in losing.
I'm saying that they need to understand the fine line between fun and not fun and actively pursue the "fun" side whenever possible.
I guess my issue with this is that it is impossible for anyone to say what is "fun" for another person. Everyone may play this game from a different perspective so how is it fair for anyone to say a legal tactic is unsportsmanlike?
I try to help new/inexperienced players as much as possible, and tell them counters to armies. I have always told the players things that could have countered certain armies or tactics I use because if they are aware of them they will improve their overall game. I just can't agree that using any legal tactic is ever unsportsmanlike. I don't think they even detract from the overall gameplay if the intent is to help players understand why the tactics are so useful. Billiv15 whipped me showing me activations, but I didn't consider it unsportsmanlike. It took me a while to come to terms with it, but I learned from it and improved my overall game.
I try to help new/inexperienced players as much as possible, and tell them counters to armies. I have always told the players things that could have countered certain armies or tactics I use because if they are aware of them they will improve their overall game. I just can't agree that using any legal tactic is ever unsportsmanlike. I don't think they even detract from the overall gameplay if the intent is to help players understand why the tactics are so useful. Billiv15 whipped me showing me activations, but I didn't consider it unsportsmanlike. It took me a while to come to terms with it, but I learned from it and improved my overall game.
Read my other posts and I think you'll find we're in very close agreement.
I guess my issue with this is that it is impossible for anyone to say what is "fun" for another person. Everyone may play this game from a different perspective so how is it fair for anyone to say a legal tactic is unsportsmanlike?
I try to help new/inexperienced players as much as possible, and tell them counters to armies. I have always told the players things that could have countered certain armies or tactics I use because if they are aware of them they will improve their overall game. I just can't agree that using any legal tactic is ever unsportsmanlike. I don't think they even detract from the overall gameplay if the intent is to help players understand why the tactics are so useful. Billiv15 whipped me showing me activations, but I didn't consider it unsportsmanlike. It took me a while to come to terms with it, but I learned from it and improved my overall game.
It's certainly a gray area. But there was a lot of context behind Bill's "whipping" of you and mine of Hop. We spent a lot of time discussing the issue with you and Hop, and clearly defining what we expected to happen despite repeated denials that it would be effective. We're also all adults with an interest in playing the game at the highest tactical level.
That's very different from crushing novices or kids using the same tactics. While perhaps it's not "unsportsmanlike" absolutely, I can understand why in such a context people would describe it that way. Crushing that newbie or kid through tactics that prevent them from even getting a chance to play (we just spent 20 minutes explaining the rules, and you get to play for 3 before the lockout!) is a disservice to everyone trying to grow the game through grassroots efforts.
Nickname I agree with that in that I am not advocating that everyone should give a beat down to inexperienced players or kids. I would never advocate that, and I would advocate for the opposite. However, at what point do you consider a player experienced is I guess partly where this is iffy for me. There are several players locally who can be beat with the same tactic over and over. Hop and I have tried explaining it to them over and over, but they don't change their playstyle. After nicely explaining it several times sometimes it takes being decimated to actually help them understand. I am not saying it is fun to be that person (I particularly don't like being that example opponent), but it is also not unsportsmanlike.
I would agree with you, and Klecser, both that anyone doing this to brand new players or kids is not helping. However, if you never show a kid or new player that can happen then if they went to a tournament or something it would be just as cruel to learn it the hard way.
I think it a weird round a bout way we are all probably saying the same thing. I just like the negative connotation of unsportsmanlike to any legal tactic in any game casual or competitive. I can't think of a better term, but I think that is the part of this discussion I have the hardest time with.
Nickname I agree with that in that I am not advocating that everyone should give a beat down to inexperienced players or kids. I would never advocate that, and I would advocate for the opposite.
Right, and so we can easily assume that's the kind of unsportsmanlike behavior the article is referring to and that alone. It's one questionable word choice out of a 2000 word article of greatness. I'd change it too. klecser says it's intended in no way as an absolute and in a variety of situations you described he would not consider it unsportsmanlike so he's using it in a way that you or I wouldn't quite use it. So to dwell on it much more is kind of missing the forest for the trees--we all basically agree.
It all comes down to the fact that my way of explaining my position made some assumptions and that I summarized some opinions that I probably could have fleshed out more. In the end, the writer has to make the decision to just let the reader fill in the gaps, or go blind editing until its perfect.
Take comfort in knowing that you've convinced me of a bias in the way that I describe unsportsmanlike behavior. It isn't the ACT that is the problem quite frequently, but how that act is used by players. I am greatful that other veterans have recognized a common understanding and have been able to explain what I mean better than I can.
Choosing how much to show someone an idea and how much to describe an idea to them is central to my profession and there isn't an easy answer of when to do one over the other. It comes with experience. Being immersed in a culture makes it easier for a gamer to know when to make that decision. I'm confident that expereinced gamers are in a position to make that decision, but every play group is different.
Regardless, I think these discussions occur at LGS' about things like Gambit and you work through them by TALKING about them openly with players. So much of the struggles amongst gamers are communication breakdowns.
Don't assume it was free, or that a simple thank you will suffice as payment.
One day, he will ask you for a "favor" - that is the nature of the Godfather
"Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But, until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."
@Don: Thanks for linking that. It will be a great resource for people viewing the thread. The goal here is to make this a resource, and everybody who has contributed has done a stellar job so far.
I do prefer the Gambit style of play as well. I have used this system in other non-DCI events and I find it very valuable. You always have to remind folks to keep track of it, though.
Very nice article, Mike.
The Godfather has had his sights on klecser and ironlightsaber for sometime now. There time will come.
I have said this before and it is time to say it again.
I would like the rules for gambit be changed so only one player gets the gambit points each round. That would be the player closest to the center of gambit. If both players have figs tied for the closest then the player with the highest cost fig would get the points. This would definetly increase the battle for gambit and make some maps best gambit side change. I really think this change would help game flow move to more battles quicker making the games move at a faster rate. When only one side gets gambit points each round it makes those points much more important.
I would like the rules for gambit be changed so only one player gets the gambit points each round. That would be the player closest to the center of gambit. If both players have figs tied for the closest then the player with the highest cost fig would get the points. This would definetly increase the battle for gambit and make some maps best gambit side change. I really think this change would help game flow move to more battles quicker making the games move at a faster rate. When only one side gets gambit points each round it makes those points much more important.
While that sounds good on paper, I think in practice its a step in the wrong direction, with the current legal maps that we have.
A player controls the center as you specified. They now have a guaranteed stream of points until they are ousted from their position. On current maps, it becomes even HARDER for the player that loses side to get to that position. In short, it unbalances certain maps even more than they already are. There are certain figs that would make for a big change in squad building, which I'm not opposed to, but I'm guessing that people may not think about the squad construction changes that would happen. Most people are resistant to meta shake ups.
That isn't to say that it couldn't be a good plan, but the current legal maps would probably need a change. A good suggestion, but I don't see it happening due to the other changes that would need to follow to keep balance in the game.
Keep thinking about how it could be improved though! I'm of the opinion that it isn't broken, and therefore doesn't really need fixing. It does what it intends to do, and any negatives of it are just different from the negatives that would arise from changing it in some way.
Since I am from the same local area as Hop, and due to our entire area misunderstanding how gambit worked when it first was initiated, I can tell you that his suggestion seemed to provide more of what gambits' intention seems to be. We saw more action in games where only one player can get gambit than in several games now. Allowing only one person to get it makes everyone need to figure out how to be in/hold the middle (the exact middle if strategically possible), and there were multiple games where gambit was a deciding factor.
The way it is now a lot of times a player tries to work it out to run a low post cost character into gambit at the end of the round to get gambit to equalize it, or gain the advantage. This wasn't as easy when it was only the player whose character was closest to the exact center.
I can see what you are saying about maps, but some of these same maps are just as detrimental to one side now. In most of the cases it either evens them out, or flips the side that has a very small advantage. I think this would be a good change, but obviously there is not a "one size fits all" type fix.
I would like to know what game balance changes you think this would require just because I am curious. This discussion may be off topic for this thread since this thread is about current gambit though.
Said it last time hop brought it up, but I like his suggestion. I just don't think it's significantly better. You just trade one set of minor inconveniences for another. Both achieve the goal of requiring both players to be near the center of the map, and thus within striking distance of each other.
I would like to know what game balance changes you think this would require just because I am curious. This discussion may be off topic for this thread since this thread is about current gambit though.
Certain things that lots of players complain about (domination of certain figures, etc) continues under your new suggested system, but just in different ways.
Nickname is probably right in that change is probably minor. It just trades a few things that bother many of us for a few DIFFERENT things that would likely bother us for the same reason.
The pendulum swings both ways. Under your suggested system, there would be MORE engagement. People wouldn't have any leeway to wait. At the same time, once you secure Gambit with a big beefy figure, your opponent has to work all the much harder to get it back.
Starship would be a really good example. Under your example, the good side doesn't get equalized. It gets BETTER. Now, instead of needing to just get near the center on the bad side, a player would need to turn the corner, oust your big figure sitting there, and still have to survive your counter attack. That isn't easy to do preserving your squad integrity and max damage potential. In short, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I would suggest playing your suggestion on the bad side and see what that does to game balance.
In addition, the meta would shift to make push squads more viable (which I am not opposed to), amongst many other changes. I'm not in any way against meta shifts, but its something worth mentioning because I don't think some would think that far ahead in making a change like that. They may end up creating a situation they never wanted in the first place.
Its definitely interesting to think about and although I disagree that its needed I like thinking about those possibilities.
There would definitly be some shifting if it were really changed, but I have to say that when Draellix and I were playing gambit the way I suggested - the game was much more fun and high paced. Much less hiding and waiting - and yes it was before we understood activations so maybe it would be a little different now (although most of our squads of the day had plenty of activations to compete with ones today). Gambit's designed to me still seems better suited to where only one person can get the points though. I still find it very strange that both sides get it like they do.
I also find it interesting (assuming that starship mean the ROTS Starter board) that you (Klecser) think that the side with the room is the better of the two sides. I would almost always take the power regulator side with current rules. If gambit was changed then my side choice would also change.
There would definitly be some shifting if it were really changed, but I have to say that when Draellix and I were playing gambit the way I suggested - the game was much more fun and high paced.
I think what you are missing here is that we not only need to consider a rule change in the hands of FAIR players (you and draellix) and the change in the light of UNFAIR players. In short, when we consider rule changes for the player base, we want to avoid rules that can be abused severely. Just because you or I wouldn't abuse it, doesn't mean that many unfair players wouldn't. That is why a lot of rules that individual groups of players like and can play fairly remain out of the rulebook. Because in a wider audience they're subject to abuse from unfair players.
I also find it interesting (assuming that starship mean the ROTS Starter board) that you (Klecser) think that the side with the room is the better of the two sides.
Whenever I have referred to the good side, I've always referred to the power regulator side. That is the current good side.
And I got a little confused there. The room side WOULD get better under your suggestion. My mistake.
Great Thread Klecser! This Gambit cynic is impressed.
I do have one question though or more likely a point I seek other posters opinions on.
My local scene, meta if you like, is both my competative and casual scene. We have dabbled with Gambit and to be honest it really hasn't had an influence on the games we played. Granted, sporadic camping is about as unsportsmanlike as this group gets.
Hang on, I can forsee ppl asking for examples.
The games have been easliy won i.e. players concede due to overwhelming losses or straightout decisive victories. (hmm I think they're the same thing?) Therefore Gambit was not necessary. Gambit would only be necessary in close games, which do happen often but usually the game is won by initiative or good/bad rolling. So, is it like driving stick over auto?
I can see the "spice" it adds to a game, added objective etc. The more I write the more I think that it does add another dimension or level to the game.....dare I say it? I am being swayed...damn you klecser!
Generally, Gambit isn't about so much about close games or blowouts.
It just forces "aggressive" play where both players must make a reasonable and consistent effort to engage the enemy.
If you're at a venue where people do that without the extra motivation then great, you don't really need it, and in many games you and your opponent will realize in round 2 you don't even need to track it because it won't matter.
(Which isn't exactly an argument against it. It'll be there if/when you need it. Sort of like having a Fire Extinguisher around isn't a bad idea even though you never have any fires.)
Not everyone is lucky enough to have a group that consists entirely of such players, and there it goes from a nicety to a necessity.
Great Thread Klecser! This Gambit cynic is impressed.
I do have one question though or more likely a point I seek other posters opinions on.
My local scene, meta if you like, is both my competative and casual scene. We have dabbled with Gambit and to be honest it really hasn't had an influence on the games we played. Granted, sporadic camping is about as unsportsmanlike as this group gets.
Hang on, I can forsee ppl asking for examples.
The games have been easliy won i.e. players concede due to overwhelming losses or straightout decisive victories. (hmm I think they're the same thing?) Therefore Gambit was not necessary. Gambit would only be necessary in close games, which do happen often but usually the game is won by initiative or good/bad rolling. So, is it like driving stick over auto?
I can see the "spice" it adds to a game, added objective etc. The more I write the more I think that it does add another dimension or level to the game.....dare I say it? I am being swayed...damn you klecser!
My Meta area was very similiar however we went ahead and made the switch a while back. What happened was remarkable: the games got faster, upsets happened more frequently, and players seemed to pay closer to the game status such as scores and game state. This also allowed them to learn the "worldwide" meta and have it make sense. If you were here when I first joined this board I was violently against gambit. Now Id have to say it was the best thing I gained from being a member of this board seeing that it helped me and as a TO it helped my local game.
On another note this is my 1,000 post. Just out of curiosity am I in the "Elite" now?? :D
It really is amazing what gambit can do to your local scene. Once people catch on to it. There are a few guys absoultly opposed to it at my LGS, but we play DCI so we use gambit rules. And while it isn't always needed, it sure helps. I've been in a dozen matchs going back to last year that were either won or lost by 5 points or less. So yeah gambit does make a difference. Of course some people tend to think that gambit elimenates strategy like flanking or such, but forces players to charge the middle. And while gambit points are helpful I've played games with gambit where neither of us touched the center the entire game. The most recent was on the death star with han cannons on both sides of the map. I wonder why no one wanted to be in the middle?
So tactics are still important, I think even more so, esepically if your opponent is scoreing gambit and your not. That point defecent can be overcome, but it requires better play
Best gaming community in the world. My collection is proof.
2009 SWM RAC member 795 Club member
Over 75 Good trades, Zero Negatives You can check out my squads at Bloomilk, or share in more conversations at SWMGAMERS
Gambit Scoring in Star Wars Miniatures: Fact and Opinion
The goal of this article is to help new players, or veteran players that are new to bonus scoring, to understand both the basic mechanics of and rationale for Gambit scoring. Gambit scoring is referred to frequently on the message boards. Official sources explaining the rule exist, but they are tucked away within the Wizards of the Coast website. I hope that this article makes the Gambit rules more accessible and easy to understand, as well as allow a place to civilly discuss the rationale for and opinions about Gambit scoring.
Fact
What is Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring is a “bonus” scoring system that grants players additional points in a game, beyond eliminating enemy figures, if they meet a single specific goal.
How does it work?
Gambit scoring grants a player five victory points at the end of a round, if they have at least one figure within four squares of the center of the map. Additional figures near the center do not grant extra points. The points are the same as if a player eliminated an opposing figure of cost five. If the total of (Point cost enemy figures eliminated) + (Gambit points) = Squad Build Point Limit, then that player wins the game. For example, in a 100 point game, eliminating 80 points of enemy figures and scoring 20 gambit points by the end of a round would mean victory for that player as soon as the gambit points are given.
How do I find the center of a map and four squares from the center of that map?
Newer published maps have a white circle marking the center of a map:
You can easily find the center of an older map without the marks by counting from the edges of the map. The center is equidistant from each side. The following example shows how you would count to find the center counting from each side. Where all of the counts intersect is the center point. In this example the center is the point intersection of both “11” and “17” squares. It is marked with a red “x”.
Once you have found the center, whether it is a square or an intersection of lines, you count four squares as you would count range for a Range 6 or similar ability. Diagonals count as two. Terrain is ignored.
This website contains the SWM Floor Rules, with pictures showing the exact squares affected: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home. The link is at the bottom of the website page. I purposely did not provide a direct link to the actual document with the hopes that it will be updated in the near future, breaking a direct link. View Item 622 in the Floor Rules for the pictures.
A screen capture from that Document to save you time:
The following picture shows the very first map in the game, "Death Star", which has the center point as an intersection of lines. The Gambit scoring area is marked in red. Image courtesy of The Holocron
Not all maps work out perfectly, as evidenced by the Power Regulation Chamber or "Starship" map from the Revenge of the Sith Starter Set. Even numbered squares meet on the short side, but have an extra square between them on the long side. Image courtesy of The Holocron. Gambit scoring area is marked in red lines.
Where did you find these rules? They aren’t in the rulebook from the Starter Set!
They are not. Gambit scoring was introduced for competitive play. As a result they can be found in the official DCI Floor Rules for Star Wars Miniatures, available here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home. The link is at the bottom of the website page. Look at Item 622 a few pages into the rules.
Why was Gambit scoring introduced? – A Short History
Competitive DCI play began shortly after the game was introduced. It was immediately clear that specific rules could be abused by players to achieve victories that required very little engagement. An early culprit was the Override Special Ability. At the time, no counter existed to prevent a player from quickly eliminating an enemy figure at range, scoring a few easy points, and then locking all of their figures in a room. Once ten rounds passed, victory was achieved without any engagement beyond the first point-scoring shots. These victories were called “lockouts.” The game was not fun and technically nothing in the rules as written prevented those victory tactics.
In addition to lockout victories, the game also suffered from “camping”. Camping is gamer slang for designing squads that benefit from sitting in a corner or other easily defensible location and forcing the opponent to come to them. The opponent, if they choose to engage, suffers a tremendous disadvantage and is forced to choose between a boring drawn-out game and suicidal engagement. Once again camping was not prevented by rules. Instead it is a way to play the game in an unsportsmanlike manner within the loophole of not breaking any game rules.
Wizards of the Coast has a vested interest in creating games that are fun that people want to play. To address these issues in official competitive play, Gambit scoring was introduced as a foolproof way to force engagement.
Do I have to use Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring is an official DCI rule that is used in sanctioned DCI tournaments. Players that do not play DCI games do not need to use Gambit scoring. However, I will now make the case that any play group can benefit from Gambit scoring.
Opinion
The next section in the article will attempt to build a case for using Gambit scoring at any venue, whether in DCI tournaments or not. The intent here is not to suggest that any venue should do things the way I want to do them or to become a competitive venue. Rather, my experience is that gambit scoring is good for the game and good for fostering a positive play environment when approached with a positive attitude. Most people in our area, myself included, resisted Gambit scoring when it was first released. Now we can’t play the game without out. How did this happen? Read on.
What are the advantages of Gambit scoring?
Gambit scoring carries with it a great deal of advantages for a play environment that anyone can benefit from.
1. Gambit scoring makes the game more fun for many people.
Gambit scoring forces engagement. To win the game with Gambit scoring, you have to be prepared to battle for the center of the map and eliminate points if your opponent has more gambit scores than you. This can make the game feel more like Star Wars to a lot of people. In the movies, battles are fierce. Many people want the game to be that way.
Gambit scoring can also have the advantage of making for shorter games. When an individual gets a lead on Gambit, the worst thing that an opponent can do tactically is to wait. For better or for worse they have to engage. This generally makes games go quicker.
2. Gambit helps to set a tone of fair play at your venue.
Gambit prevents under-handed tactics like lockouts and camping. I’ll discuss those more specifically in the next point. The real benefit of preventing under-handed tactics is that it sends a very clear signal to players trying to bring them to your venue. It says: “If you try to lockout or camp here, we have rules in play that will prevent you from being successful.” Why does this matter? It makes it so you don’t have to say anything! You get to avoid those awkward conversations. The rules themselves are doing the dirty work for you.
3. Gambit will make you a more careful (and later on better) player.
Later on in the article I’ll discuss how to play Gambit successfully. It takes a little bit of practice and an open-minded attitude. As you continue to practice with it, you’ll notice some changes in your play.
Most importantly, gambit requires you to pay attention to the score of the game. This is an aspect of the game that is often over looked by players, especially casual ones. Many people (I’m one of them!) don’t always want to expend the mental effort to keep track of points on the board. Many of us would prefer to just say to ourselves: “Kill lots of points!” and consider that a good victory strategy. The only problem with this is that, quite frequently, not counting the points can result in losses by just a few points in timed games. “I don’t play timed games and I don’t want the seriousness of having to count points. I’m a casual player!” It’s fine that you are a casual player. However, casual or competitive, most players like to win their games. I don’t think that’s a stretch. When you count points, you are in a better position to make tactical decisions. You make better choices of who to eliminate in what order. You often realize that an obvious target will get you points. But, by counting points you understand that there is a less obvious target that can win you the game! I’ll draw an analogy to chess. In chess, people that think multiple moves ahead do much better in the game. If you consider yourself a casual chess player, yet lose frequently, its probably because you have not yet developed the mental skill in chess of thinking ahead. You can!
Gambit scoring also really makes you think of the position of your figures on the board. You should not obsess over it (a common early Gambit player mistake). Later in this article I’ll discuss positioning strategies with Gambit. When you start using these strategies you realize that they generally improve your game. You become better at putting the right characters in the right places at the right times. You learn how to engage your opponent’s position and actively begin to prevent them from getting to the right squares from them.
Gambit scoring helps you to learn when to engage and when not to engage. There are certain times when it is important to engage right away. There are some times when it is important to wait. Gambit scoring helps you to see those decisions as important ones, mostly because you can’t be successful with Gambit without knowing at least partly how to do those things. I’ll say more about this in a later section.
4. Gambit scoring prevents “lockout” and “camping” styles of play.
One of the best benefits of Gambit scoring is that it makes “lockout” and “camping” ineffective strategies for winning. Most gamers that support fair play agree that these two styles sap fun from the game. Lockouts are not as much of a concern as they used to be in the game. Satchel Charge and other Special Abilities have been introduced that make it difficult for people to get lockouts. It is still a possibility though. Players that support lockout tactics usually adapt their tactics to take out any enemy pieces that could deal with Override. Even if you have Satchel Charge, it won’t do you any good if your opponent eliminates that piece and still has override. Gambit is a good solution because if you can secure a lead on Gambit, the opponent cannot win the game by merely killing a low cost piece and locking door. They are forced to engage and play on your terms.
Camping is not a viable strategy at all under Gambit scoring. Any lead that you gain by Gambit is not easily overcome by a camper. They can’t afford to sit there and let you score points. Camping has evolved with Gambit to include “Center Camping” in which a person utilizes walls near the center to be protected from their opponent while still gaining Gambit. While similar to camping in that it gives the person an advantage, camping the center does not give them the same advantages that camping corner of the board does. They have an advantage, but that advantage is not as extreme. It is far easier to engage someone in the center of many maps than it is in a corner. You may have to take fire to reach the center, but it is usually much less fire than you would take if approaching a camper in a corner.
What are the consequences of Gambit scoring?
We finished the last section with the feeling that there can be some consequences for Gambit. I’m of the opinion that most of these consequences are growing pains associated with a new format and psychological. Many of these are consequences only if you let them control you. The following consequences are common ones mentioned by both players new to gambit and veterans.
1. Gambit isn’t perfect. There is still camping.
It is not perfect. Many of the big objections that people bring to gambit is that it just creates a situation in which people camp a different portion of the board. As discussed above in “center camping” this is a very real possibility. I think the real culprit is specific maps that allow for center camping more than others. Players of this game have had a lot of input lately on selecting maps that are legal for DCI play. So, I am of the opinion that if we are doing a good job in selecting those maps, then center camping will not be as viable. Many of the newest maps that have been released have open centers, making it nearly impossible to successfully center camp. We are in the process of getting these maps legal for DCI play. This is a legitimate argument but I think that we have developed strong enough communication with WotC that we can address the issue.
2. Gambit can make the game go slower.
Wait a minute. Earlier I said that Gambit can make the game go faster. I think that there is a perception out there that the game can be slower with Gambit. It can be. When players camp the center or just surround the center in a stand-off, collecting Gambit behind walls, then both sides can tend to hesitate to engage.
I contend that the problem is not Gambit scoring. My personal experience is that the players are choosing to make the game go longer. Waiting isn’t really helping either side. You may be waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. A lot of the time all of that waiting doesn’t change the fact that you have to sometimes take damage to get the ball rolling. Experienced players realize that whether you are a casual player or competitive player, you have to take risks to win the game. People are choosing to not take risks when they stand off in the center.
3. Gambit forces people to battle for a lead and does not match certain play styles.
Most people don’t like to be “forced” to do anything and gamers are no exception. Gambit definitely benefits more aggressive play. Some players prefer to take their time getting to the center. They don’t like to have to change their play style to fit a bonus scoring system. I can sympathize with the difficulty of the change.
At the same time, I have had consistent experiences with players that don’t like the aggressive style of play supported by Gambit. I was one of them. Then, I started thinking about why it bothered me so much. I realized something. I realized that a big part of my objection was that I was engaging in mild camping. I didn’t even realize I was doing it. Why not? Tactically camping makes sense. In a real battle, setting up a strong defensive position and making the enemy fight on your terms is an advantage! So why shouldn’t we do that in this game? The short answer is that this game is not a military battle. People die in military battles. They are defending their families in many cases. Star Wars Miniatures should put fun as a higher priority than victory. Camping in a game may be a perfectly viable strategy, but it doesn’t foster fun. So, my problem was that my tactical mind was taking over and unconsciously doing things that were viable military strategies, but not very good at fostering fun.
I want to ask people that object to gambit to think about my story and think about their own. Why are you upset about Gambit? What is your play style really like? My experience is that many an intelligent individual camps without realizing they are doing so. They don’t realize they’re doing it because they haven’t reflected much on what they are doing. And it may not be very recognizable to their opponents because they don’t do it in an over-the-top sort of way. They don’t do it all the time. They may only do it when their squad is mismatched to the enemy squad. Or they may only do it when they have a map that gives them a disadvantage.
4. Gambit changes how I build squads.
Gambit will change how you build squads. Be careful. The most important decisions you need to make in building squads is how you will do damage and how you will prevent your squad from taking it. Collecting Gambit should never be the only goal or strength of a squad. I would go so far as to say that it should be a rare occasion in which the sole purpose of a single piece should be to collect gambit unless it does that role very well. I’ll give some options in a later section for selecting pieces for Gambit scoring. Many of these pieces serve dual roles of Gambit collector and primary damage dealer or other support.
Will you have to adapt your squad building to Gambit? Of course. A lot of changes involve building squads that don’t camp. To follow up on a point I made earlier. Players that camp subtly that don’t realize their doing it often build squads that are centered around camping. There are many reasons that they do it but rarely is it intentional. They may build the squad because it contains figures that they like. They may be unconsciously building to get a tactical advantage for camping but not realizing that camping is the advantage. When I have talked to players that do this they focus on the abilities on the individual cards and often don’t say anything about how the combination of pieces is supporting camping. So that I am very clear, these players aren’t realizing that they have been building in a way that supports camping. They aren’t consciously unfair in their play.
How do maps factor in here?
As I mentioned earlier, the maps that we play the game on make a big difference for Gambit. Certain maps make certain tactics more viable than others.
Starting side
Gambit makes certain maps have better starting sides than others. This leads players to refer to a map’s “good side” or bad side.” They are often referring to which starting side makes it easier to obtain or secure Gambit over another. The hardback Revenge of the Sith Starter map is a good example. In the example below, the map center is marked with a red “x” and the “good side” is the side at the bottom of the photo. Not only can a person starting on that side walk into gambit on the first turn, but they are also protected behind a wall. Gambit scoring is not the ultimate “problem.” The map is. I’m not saying that this is a bad map. I’m saying that it contributes to a negative perception towards Gambit that many players have.
Protected centers
The last map has a good starting side because of a protected center. A person can get in a safe position near the center of the map and essentially camp there and wait for the opponent to arrive. The opponent has to cross difficult terrain, slowing them down, and is a sitting duck for any shooter. I don’t doubt that this situation makes for less enjoyable games, but the good news is that many of the recently released maps really level the playing field allowing both sides to engage without a disadvantage. The recently released Taris map is a good example. The map center is marked with a red “x” and is an intersection of squares, not a whole square. This is a really good example of Gambit that is more difficult to obtain for both sides.
Of course, nothing is perfect and people will be quick to point out that Gambit scoring may be even here, but the map favors shooter squads. I don’t intend to get into a discussion of maps in general here. I want to emphasize maps in the context of Gambit only.
How do I play Gambit scoring successfully?
Build your squad.
I said earlier that it is important when building your squad that you build for damaging dealing and prevention first. That is ultimately how you win games. This game is all about damage exchange. That doesn’t mean that you can’t select figures that can serve as both damage dealers or support and be good at collecting gambit.
Some options:
The low-cost Gambit getter
These are your Ugnaught Demolitionists and Gran Raiders. Low cost figures can serve multiple roles. Ugnaughts can be gambit getters, activations, door blowers, and blockers. Gran Raiders can be everything but a door blower, and have the added advantage of Stealth. The point to focus on is that low cost Gambit getters allow you to not focus a lot of points on getting Gambit, and do not result in the loss of many points if they are eliminated.
The high-cost, big and beefy Gambit getter
Sometimes your main damage dealer is also your gambit getter. They have a high defense, a lot of hit points, and can also deal damage. Shooters with Mobile Attack can pop out from behind walls and end their turn behind the safety of the wall, while still collecting Gambit. Jedi have lots of hit points and are great ways to vie for control of a gambit location that shooters often can’t do. As shooters are more easily damaged close up they can’t hold Gambit in close proximity like Melee can. The general philosophy here is that you can control Gambit easily if your opponent has to engage with their whole squad just eliminate a Gambit piece.
The defensive Gambit getter
Star Wars Miniatures is heavily populated by figures with defensive abilities that work to stop people from damaging your squad. Evade, Lightsaber Deflect, Lightsaber Reflect, Force Bubble, Stealth, Super Stealth, and Cloaked are the top Special Abilities to sue for collecting Gambit defensively. In some cases, a figure can sit in line of sight of the enemy, in cover, and have no fear of retaliation. This really forces your opponent to engage and makes for exciting games. Another benefit of a “defensive” Gambit getter is that you are committing fewer points to the engagement range of your opponent, potentially giving you a tactical advantage in the end game. This comes with the risk that you won’t be able to muster support for your Gambit getter as quickly. It’s fun to work through the costs and benefits of how to engage your opponent in these scenarios.
The mobile Gambit getter
Pieces with high speeds can secure Gambit much faster than others. Pieces with normal speeds can often get to places normally out of their reach on the first turn through Special Abilities like Lift or Tow Cable. Flight combined with a higher than normal Speed is one of the easiest ways to get to Gambit. Flight allows you to ignore difficult terrain, pits, and low cover that would normally slow you down. The Dark Hellion Marauder on Swoop Bike is a cheap piece at a cost of ten that has a tremendous range for securing first round Gambit. It also has the benefit of Mobile Attack, so that it can pop out of a secured Gambit location, shoot down a low cost enemy Gambit getter and return to safety.
Override
Override can open up paths to Gambit squares that normally would not be accessible to figures in early turns. Opening a key door could allow one of your figures to get a place that will give you an early lead on Gambit. Many experienced players have a lot of fun in finding early routes to Gambit that their opponents don’t expect, surprising them.
Have fun experimenting with combinations that can help secure Gambit. Always remember that getting Gambit doesn’t do you any good if you can’t deal damage to the enemy and work through the damage dealt to your own figures.
Play aggressively, but carefully.
The cool thing about gambit in my mind is that it really forces players to know when to wait and when to engage. Gambit is not about throwing caution into the wind and charging at the enemy squad. So when do you engage and when do you wait? You engage when you can get ahead and stay ahead on points. You wait when you are already ahead on points and gain an advantage by waiting. It’s obviously not that simple. At some level, practice is the only way you can really learn when to engage and when to wait. I am confident that Gambit does have people engage sooner than caution would normally tell them to, and that makes for more fast paced games.
Position carefully to control the center.
Part of playing Gambit successfully is not only being able to get Gambit yourself, but to position your figures to deny your opponent Gambit. What fun would it be if your opponent didn’t have to work for victory? Part of this is knowing the map you are playing on. Part of it is knowing what your pieces are capable of and what your opponents can do. Part of it is knowing when to engage and when not engage. Part of it is knowing how much to risk and how much not to risk. Gambit can help you improve with all of these! In short, I think that Gambit is really about all the things that we love about critical thinking in this game. I could say a great deal about many of these things, but at the end of the day practice is what will be your best teacher in improving.
Don’t obsess over Gambit!
One of the biggest mistakes players make when they start playing with Gambit scoring is that they obsess so heavily over obtaining Gambit that they ignore already sound tactical understandings they had used before. This is true of learning any new aspect of a game. It takes time to learn the ins and outs of the format. I really think that that investment in time and feeling vulnerable is really what a lot of people object to with regards to Gambit. When you first play it, there is a period in which you are a slightly worse player than you were before you started playing it. Some people take that as a challenge work towards improving. Some people object, fold their arms in defiance, and are determined to never change again. It usually isn’t a surprise when those players stop playing Gambit, or simply descend into a spiral of not improving at the game.
Attitude is everything. If you go into Gambit scoring with the attitude that it is bad and not fun, guess what? It won’t be fun. If you go into with the attitude that you can become a better player and prevent un fair play at your venue by adopting it, then you’ll have a much better experience.
You don’t need to score Gambit points every round. In fact, the best piece of advice that I give to players starting out with Gambit is to 1) Be aware that it is there. 2) Place eliminating opponent pieces as a higher priority than Gambit 3) Be aware of whether your opponent is ahead of you or not on Gambit. 4) Try to start tracking points in your head, or on paper. That’s a lot of stuff to keep track of, but it is only the beginning of the depth of how far you can go into Gambit scoring.
In Summary
I hope that I’ve made a pretty good case here as to why any play group should think about using Gambit scoring. I want to end the article with an assertion that I believe very deeply and is always a hot area of contention here. There is equal value in causal play and tournament play. I do not think that tournament players are any better than casual players and I do not think that Gambit scoring is only a rule for tournament play. I think that Gambit scoring could be very useful to casual players that approach it with a positive attitude.
A Discussion Starter
I’m sure people will find a lot to talk about regarding Gambit scoring. One specific question that has been broached here that hasn’t been extensively discussed is: Should Gambit scoring be included in the rulebook? I know that there are many good arguments for and against it. I look forward to input on any aspect of the article and I hope you find it useful! :D
I have pitched this post to the guys at my local shop, I hope they consider the things you have said. I also linked back to the thread should they wish to respond to you
You define Gambit as the additional points. I have found that confuses players who are new to the concept, and that it makes more sense to them when I explain it like this:
Gambit: the player's total score. You score Gambit points through defeating enemy figs and exactly 5 additional points by having at least one character within 4 squares of the middle of the map at the end of each round.
So now when I ask a player, "how much gambit do you have?" They tend to answer by looking at my figs sitting off the table and add them up first.
You define Gambit as the additional points. I have found that confuses players who are new to the concept, and that it makes more sense to them when I explain it like this:
Gambit: the player's total score. You score Gambit points through defeating enemy figs and exactly 5 additional points by having at least one character within 4 squares of the middle of the map at the end of each round.
So now when I ask a player, "how much gambit do you have?" They tend to answer by looking at my figs sitting off the table and add them up first.
I like that technique because that is what people really should be doing. It is about the point TOTAL and it is only a very obscure tie breaker that rarely happens that would matter how many times someone received those five points.
Awesome article! For someone like me who has tried to get my local group to adopt these rules, this article is a lifesaver. Thanks again for taking the time to write it.
I remember reading this back in january and now I read it again and it is even better than when I first read it. Especailly the section talking about the obsesion. I have come to realize I played that way for a long time. And I have started to be a more guarded gambit getter since.
Way to go Teach
Best gaming community in the world. My collection is proof.
2009 SWM RAC member 795 Club member
Over 75 Good trades, Zero Negatives You can check out my squads at Bloomilk, or share in more conversations at SWMGAMERS
Great post wanted to bump it, just looked at it again, Gambit discussions are a regular conversation and I always like to check up on this article, it's a great resource.
Best gaming community in the world. My collection is proof.
2009 SWM RAC member 795 Club member
Over 75 Good trades, Zero Negatives You can check out my squads at Bloomilk, or share in more conversations at SWMGAMERS
View Item 622 in the Floor Rules for the pictures.
:P
Just out of curiosity am I in the "Elite" now?? :D
