On Stalling.

[kerrygray8]

People don't like 'bad stuff' happening to their team and an opponent stalling is often a sign of your team being in a bad situation. However, these moments are fleeting; and the next brilliant moment for your team is not far off (maybe not in the current game, but 'the next game' is often not far away.....).

Perhaps it depends how regularly you play? I used to be an infrequent BB player and a very infrequent WHFB player. Because of this, catastrophes that befell my team / army tended to seem worse, because it might be weeks or months before I got to play again. I now play BB weekly; and although I hardly ever play WHFB these days, if I do it will be 2 smaller battles in one day, rather than 1 big battle. This makes all the 'bad stuff' seem less important, as there will be imminent opportunities for some better luck!

Also, if my opponent is stalling I see it as a chance to make some memorable heroic plays! On several occasions I have grabbed an unlikely draw or win when my opponent was stalling in order to beat up my team and leave me no time to score. Indeed, just the other week my opponent's Norse team were leading 1-0 against my Humans with a few turns to go. My opponent decided to cage the ball and pound on my few remaining players. I had a prone Human Catcher with Block who got up, dodged away from the Snow Troll, dodged into the cage and 2 dice-against Blitzed the Norse Thrower - who was knocked down and seriously injured - and then dodged away from the only other adjacent Norse player. In my opponent's turn he got a few players next to my Catcher and Blitzed - Skulls and Pushes, no re-rolls left! In my turn, the same Catcher dodged away from the Norse, scooped up the ball in 2 tackle zones, legged it and made 2 Go For It rolls to put him out of range of all the Norse team. My last turn, he runs in for the equalising TD

I don't really protect my players, regardless of their skills / SPPs - I figure that if they are on the pitch they should be trying their damn hardest to inconvenience the opponent, even if massively outnumbered! If an expensive / skilled player dies then so what? It just creates a gap on the roster for perhaps an even BETTER player to develop

[Bludbowler]

Stalling is just another tactic, nothing more, nothing less. If stalling makes you feel uncomfortable when your opponent does it to you, then the best way to stop it is to reciprocate by creating discomfort for him until the stalling stops.

Single out his favorite star player, block/foul/repeat until he is out of the game, then continue doing that to as many of his players as you can until your opponent decides that stalling is no longer in his best interest.

If nothing else, you won't be sitting around whining about it.

[koadah]

I have never really understood all this talk of fouling their star player.

For the most part they will not just leave their star player out there to be fouled.

If you both have any clue how to play the game the main reason for a long stall is that the staller got lucky with his block/armour/injury rolls.

You are not likely to be in a position to get many assists. You will probably have more to lose from fouling than your opponent. You will need your few remaining men more than he needs the skillless rookie that he leaves for you.

If anything, it will be the staller who is able to use numerical advantage take your players down and foul them.

If the you have several players in the KO box then using his extra numbers hammer you in the hope of still having an advantage in the second half is good play.

Of course, if you are playing for fun rather than to win at all costs you can choose not to stall. Or to stall for a maximum of only two turns or use whatever rule you feel is reasonable.

If you are going to stall for 5/6 turns while stomping the opposing team into the dirt, at least have the decency to be quick about it. Don't spend ages trying to work out the optimum blocking scheme that will give you the most assists for your foul.

[garion]

yeah this thread is just soo full of fail tbh.

Stalling is what makes Bloodbowl such a deep tactical game, trying to stall to turn 8 to score, your opponent trying to stop you or force a quick score. To say it is wrong is completely missing the point of the game, you just need to get better at preventing the stall or forcing a quick score then capitalising with an equaliser before the half is over followed by an 8 turn stall of your own for the win.

I'm not going to go in to all of the intricacies of stalling and breaking a stall here, but as has been said many many times before learn to play better if you think stalling is an problem with the game, that is the cold harsh truth of it

[longfang]

Never has so much bullshit been contained in one thread as what you read here.

I love this last one. "Stalling is what makes blood bowl such a deep and tactical game"

I am so glad my life has moved on and I am not into tournaments any more. I cant say I miss sitting opposite the morons who make the game so dull by being so seious about winning.

[Elyoukey]

Never has so much bullshit been contained in one thread as what you read here.

I love this last one. "Stalling is what makes blood bowl such a deep and tactical game"

I am so glad my life has moved on and I am not into tournaments any more. I cant say I miss sitting opposite the morons who make the game so dull by being so seious about winning.

That's what i pointed. We don't play the same game so of course the opposition is not "right" for both sides.

as if i play chess against a ranked player and instead of trying to chessmate his king i try to draw a mickeymouse head with my pawns (which could be very fun to see). i am pretty sure he will not enjoy the game and i am pretty sure i will not enjoy his knight breaking mickey's neck.
This is what we are talking about, if you don't play the same game as your opponent then both are disapointed, there is no "right", "wrong", "moron" or "smart" attitude.

[garion]

Never has so much bullshit been contained in one thread as what you read here.

I love this last one. "Stalling is what makes blood bowl such a deep and tactical game"

I am so glad my life has moved on and I am not into tournaments any more. I cant say I miss sitting opposite the morons who make the game so dull by being so seious about winning.

I don't play in tournaments either. But when I play blood bowl I play to win otherwise what's the point? Blood bowl is one of the most strategic dice games about. If you aren't playing to win then you are really wasting your time with blood bowl and you should really be playing a pure dice game like dreadball where dice decided the outcome on their own, or just flip a coin on your own all day... If you don't play to win then you are saying you enjoy aimlessly rolling dice and seeing the outcome or as the previous post say you are just making pictures of Mickey mouse in chess.....Seems like an incredibly pointless waste of time to me.

[dode74]

otherwise what's the point?

Fun.

People play for different reasons.

[garion]

yeah I get people play for fun and the social side. But what fun is there to be had when you ignore the tactical side of the game? My point was that you are just aimlessly rolling dice if that is the case for which there are better games out there for you, if you just enjoy rolling dice. Personally I don't see where the fun is if you ignore the strategy side of bloodbowl each to their own I guess but playing that way (just rushing to score quickly again and again) would just mean elves and skaven win every single game which would be pretty dull imo.

If you could explain where the fun comes in to the game if you are ignoring the tactical side of things I would be interested to hear though, or is it just the enjoyment of rolling dice?

[koadah]

If you could explain where the fun comes in to the game if you are ignoring the tactical side of things I would be interested to hear though, or is it just the enjoyment of rolling dice?

If you don't get it, you don't get it. That seems quite bizarre to me.

I think that most people can understand that 'win at all costs' can be fun. Most can probably also understand that blood bowl can also be fun without playing 'win at all costs'.

It seems so obvious to me that I don't think that I could find words to explain it.

All I can say is that some people like the beauty of the game. As one well know fellow has been know to say "They didn't come to play, they just parked the bus in font of the goal".

As people keep saying. sometimes the win seems important, sometimes less so.

As has been said, if you are able to maintain a long stall it is probably because the opponent has been out played (rookie bashing) or you got lucky on your bashing (lucker). So, surely you can understand why the opponent might be a bit fed up. And of course, you should attempt to destroy the opponents team while you are stalling. "It's the only way to be sure".

With two good coaches in an even game, maintaining/breaking the stall is a game in it self and potentially loads of fun.

[garion]

I do play to win, but the enjoyment doesn't come from just winning, for me the enjoyment comes from a good strategic game, lots of tactics and strategy on display. And as you put it - 'With two good coaches in an even game, maintaining/breaking the stall is a game in it self and potentially loads of fun.' What I don't get is if you don't play for the strategy side you are just playing to roll dice and nothing more???

[babass]

I confess: I'm a serial staller.
I have the opposite problem. I don't feel I dick when I stall. I feel a jackass when I dont.
I stall even against the AI in the Cyanide Game.
When I do a demo game to a new player I don't stall.
But I point out to him that I should, so he learns better.
Even then I feel badly about it.

I'm also a serial fauler (my current record is 14 in a game).
I usually combine the 2 things. Stalling in order to faul more.
Searching for the clean the pitch (IMO the ultimate archivement) .

Luckily I play in a league of people with the same view of the game so we have a lot of fun.
For example not fouling at turn 16 in our league is considered bad form.
We also get very angry when the opponent doesn't do his absolute best against one of us.
Makes the game meaningless.

In the name "Blood Bowl" the word "blood" is before the word "bowl".

Just our way I guess.

+1

[Elyoukey]

What I don't get is if you don't play for the strategy side you are just playing to roll dice and nothing more???

i may have an answer to that, if you consider the "roleplaying" aspect of bloodbowl i think you can have a "fun" game without aiming at the victory for any side. Actually, it would be more a rpg. Both coaches would play both teams just to set up some crazy stories as it is done in RPG (i mean real life rpg, not the digitalizes things). It could be interesting to have such a game reported with full pictures and lot of fluff before, during and after game, but in the end, knowing the winner would not be relevant. it would look like wrestling, you know it is faked but you just watch the show.

[koadah]

I do play to win, but the enjoyment doesn't come from just winning, for me the enjoyment comes from a good strategic game, lots of tactics and strategy on display. And as you put it - 'With two good coaches in an even game, maintaining/breaking the stall is a game in it self and potentially loads of fun.' What I don't get is if you don't play for the strategy side you are just playing to roll dice and nothing more???

The fun may come from:

Kill all mens
helping/developing a new coach
developing a team
scoring a lot of touchdowns
training a legend
committing the most fouls
etc, etc

Depending on who I am playing against I may specifically NOT want to win the game. If I'm playing a coach who is 0/1/19 if I win he may never play again. The great thing about this game is that I can load things so that the opponent has a chance to win but I still get challenged. I can use my worst team. I can leave my best player on the bench. I can opt not to stall/foul/pile on etc.

So, we can still have a tight (strategic) game that is not decided until turn 16. Or I could just destroy his team in two turns, take the easy victory and never see the guy again.

And as Elyoukey says, people like the RPG aspect. We have 'players' not 'pieces'. We are 'coaches' not 'players'.
Strategically it may be better for the team if my player takes guard or tackle as his first skill. But he is 'The Bloody Nine'! He has to take Frenzy. Or at least MB then frenzy.

[garion]

Yup I get all that, and I enjoy most of those thing too. Well all except 'kill all menz' really, I've never been a big fan of destroying peoples teams. But I still don't get how people can complaint about stalling, that's the in game tactics that the whole game revolves around, trying to stall or prevent a stall. Heck even when I play with flings I win most of my matches 2-1 or 1-0. So if you don't stall you just run up the field and score, then your opponent wins, or if both players do it then you end up playing a pretty shallow game imo where you are just letting the dice decide the outcome, and you are basically back to flipping a coin...

Each to their own I guess. But they certainly shouldn't be whining about stalling as they are missing out on a huge tactical side of the game.