See Positional Gambit.
Gambit, as presented here, is a very Spikey mechanic, isn't it?

Mm. Though I'm not sure why Gambit need to be attached to modal spells. The first mode alone would have been fine (giving your opponent the choice of sacrifice or no.) It's the extra mode that really hammers home the spike.

The key elements to a gambit in chess, AIUI, are:

• The player making the gambit offers to give up some material (a piece), i.e. makes a move that puts the piece at risk
• The opponent can decline
• If the opponent accepts (captures the piece at risk), the player gets some positional benefit

So I'm not quite sure what jmg is proposing. Giving your opponent the choice of sacrifice or no is only meaningful if the version where they accept is also better for you, which I think requires the two modes or something similar.

In my version Positional Gambit, the player casting the spell is risking the piece by casting the spell. In Link's version here, casting the spell gives you the caster the choice of a "safe" move or a "risky" move; and if you make the risky move, the opponent then also has a choice whether to "capture" the piece or not.

I.e. my version has two modes once you've cast the spell:

1. Sac a creature and do something big ("gambit accepted")
2. Do something smaller without saccing a creature ("gambit refused")

The opponent chooses which of 1 and 2 you make, which means that you the caster might choose not to cast the spell if saccing a creature would be devastating to you.

Link's version has 3 modes:

1. Safe effect ("no gambit offered")
2. Sac a creature and get a good position ("gambit accepted")
3. Don't sac a creature but get a good position anyway ("gambit refused")

And the caster chooses whether it's 1 or 2-or-3, and in the 2-or-3 case the opponent chooses whether it's 2 or 3. That's an extra level on top of my version, and those grindy choices do indeed make this very Spike.

Roughly what I was saying. If we remove mode 3 altogether, the spell has an immediate benefit (return a land) and a secondary benefit (return the spell if I choose to put my creature on the line.) That's four choices (which land to target, whether to activate Gambit, which creature to Gambit, and whether or not my opponent will agree to the gambit.) Seems like plenty of decisions to me without involving the return of 3 lands.

Though, I apologize Alex. I didn't see your version on the Code Geas set when responding to this card. I wasn't responding to Gambit in general, just the way it evolved over here.

I don't understand your proposal, though. If you remove mode 3, then what does it mean to "put your creature on the line"? How can you be "risking" your creature? If any time a creature is risked it gets sacced, that's "Sacrifice a creature", no gambit involved. If any time a creature is risked it doesn't get sacced then it's not at risk at all. And if the opponent gets to choose whether the creature gets sacced or not, then why wouldn't they always choose to kill it (modulo it being something like Kokusho)?

Although this is far too complicated, it does seem to follow almost exactly your understanding of a chess gambit.