I really hate f***king stalling

[Joemanji]

Stalling is fun because it is a challenge. Against a good opponent stalling for 8 turns is difficult. You don't only stall when you get loads of men up. Many agility teams set out to stall and don't set foot in their opponent's half until turn 6/7. They will very likely be men down by the time that comes around. In a recent tournament I set up with 7 DEs vs a full Undead roster and stalled for 7 turns (would have been 8 but for a snake eyes). That was great fun because it was a challenge. My opponent can't say he didn't have the tools to stop me.

[MeatLoafX]

Just thinking a little out loud here, but: In a league, isn't there is something to be gained by not only getting SPPs for your team, but denying them to other teams? By doing that, you make your team better in the league.

In a league, you always face the very real possibility of playing a team more than once - maybe in the regular season, maybe in the playoffs. Should coaches be actively allowing other players to better their team? Giving them free SPPs?

More for discussion than anything - I haven't thought about it before.

[Joemanji]

Just thinking a little out loud here, but: In a league, isn't there is something to be gained by not only getting SPPs for your team, but denying them to other teams? By doing that, you make your team better in the league.

And you also keep your players alive. The LoS is where players go to die.

[Sizzler]

The LoS is where players go to die.

Love this statement, Joe.

[Joemanji]

sig it

[Patchwork]

Soft, speedy, agile teams hate offensive stalling... yet... agile teams stall while passing the ball around in the backfield and getting spp.... Other teams stall without getting spp....

Right... all players that hate slow bash teams stalling are players who primarily play finese team... That's as well grounded in fact as your hate of teams with ag 4.

[Sizzler]

sig it

Check the WB.

[Asperon Thorn]

If I have stopped playing the ball, I couldn't care less what the final score is.

If my opponent stops playing the ball, I don't care what the final score is, either. I automatically stop having fun the moment my opponent acknowledges he can't win, unless the math says so too. I'm going to run it up, and my wit will turn to pure acid. I'll mercilessly mock my opponent for being to weak of mind and faint of heart to even try to beat me.

I just hate it when people get upset at you because you're playing your game the right way. I really hate playing a 3-hour game with somebody who's mentally quit because he's not winning. That is bad sportsmanship. Playing your best and managing your tempo is not. In the immortal words of Herm, "you play to win the game."

Oh, and this isn't a party. It's a competitive activity. Parties are not, or at least not for me.

You DO see the irony right? Blood bowl allows for players to not play the ball. In fact there is massive amounts of fluff suggesting teams that do not. Your comment was ". . .mercilessly mock. . ." was a result of someone playing the game different from you. Because you didn't see it as the "right way."

Asperon Thorn

[mattgslater]

You DO see the irony right? Blood bowl allows for players to not play the ball. In fact there is massive amounts of fluff suggesting teams that do not. Your comment was ". . .mercilessly mock. . ." was a result of someone playing the game different from you. Because you didn't see it as the "right way."

Yes, all games have, specified or not, a rule: "you're supposed to try to win;" even though most games have both good and bad strategies allowed, you're supposed to go for what you see as the good ones. There may be more to it than that, yes. "Try to win and put yourself in a position for the next game," or "try to win without hurting the other guy's feelings." Sure. But it's a game, and your opponent can't have fun if you don't try to win. Not trying to win is essentially vetoing the activity. If you're going to be like that, don't get involved in the first place!

I'll mercilessly mock my opponent for being to weak of mind and faint of heart to even try to beat me.

Reading this again, it's a bit of an overstatement. There are a whole lot of situations where my opponent might mentally give up and I would gently prod him into getting back in the game. But I would only stall on somebody that I expected to take it better than that. Stalling is a sign of respect. If I give you the honor of camping on your goal-line for more than one turn, I'm not making a tempo maneuver; I'm making a statement that a) I have you by the shorthairs, and b) your offense is better than my defense. I'm a defensive coach. I'm loath to acknowledge that I don't think my defense is up to the task. I'd generally rather log the TD, so if anything goes wrong I have the SPP.

The fact that you quote Herm, who's a talking head now because he couldn't win games where millions of dollars had been invested and were on the line, tells me all I that I need to know.

The man wasn't a great NFL coach, okay. But he was an NFL coach for a long time, and has beaten a lot of the best (In Herm's day, the Chiefs gave my Chargers a fight, even beating the 14-2 team in '06; last year, they lost twice by a combined 58 points). He's still a pretty good authority on why you play football, if you ask me.

Here's how I see it. You owe it to your opponent in particular and the whole league in general to play your best and maintain a good attitude. It's okay to express exasperation or frustration. Nobody likes getting stalled on, fouled to death, run up on, or any of the other various bad things that can happen to you in BB. It's okay to scale down your objectives once you can't win (mathematically), to play for SPP or survival or dignity or to beat on the other guy. It's not okay to mentally quit while the game is still in reach.

[Digger Goreman]

Ag +/or Mv teams vs St +/or Av teams...

Stalling (both kinds)...

4 minute timer...

Illegal Procedure...

Fouling....

These are, and will always be, the unresolved arguments of our game....

[Heff]

stalling is fine, fouling is fine, doing the former when you are unassailably ahead and the latter when you are on turn 16 are not. Its not about the rules or trying to win or any of that its about recognising that its meant to be fun for both of you. If I objected to losing, being out thought, out played and outsmarted then I would have done something else long ago. As anybody who has had the good fortune of gaining SPP's out of my many errors will attest.

[Asperon Thorn]

You DO see the irony right? Blood bowl allows for players to not play the ball. In fact there is massive amounts of fluff suggesting teams that do not. Your comment was ". . .mercilessly mock. . ." was a result of someone playing the game different from you. Because you didn't see it as the "right way."

Yes, all games have, specified or not, a rule: "you're supposed to try to win;" even though most games have both good and bad strategies allowed, you're supposed to go for what you see as the good ones. There may be more to it than that, yes. "Try to win and put yourself in a position for the next game," or "try to win without hurting the other guy's feelings." Sure. But it's a game, and your opponent can't have fun if you don't try to win. Not trying to win is essentially vetoing the activity. If you're going to be like that, don't get involved in the first place!

No the rule for games is that "You are suppose to have fun." If your idea of fun is griefing your opponent so that you can win, then you have missed the whole social aspect of multiplayer games.

In this day and age with the advent of computers and the interweb, I am not particularly surprised that more and more antisocial people try and take social games and hide behind strategies. If you cannot make the distinction between having a good time playing a game with your mates. . and mercilessly using the best and greatest powergame builds and strategies. . .then you might as well just play behind a screen and pretend you are playing an AI, because you have already chosen to be a bit antisocial.

Now, to reiterate what Babs and I have both said. We have slowed "tempo's" down for a turn or two when needed. We also understand the strategy for stalling. However if faced with someone that would stall for turn after turn we think it is unsportsmanlike, and in an environment in which we could rate it, we would rate it low. The reason for this is that it cuts into our enjoyment of the game, and the social aspect of it, By definition, that is what unsportsmanlike means.

There are lots of strategies/tactics, other than stalling, that I would rate the same way. There are several different ways to absolutely humiliate your opponent, and I feel the same way about all of them. I rarely roll out something that will cause my opponent to storm away from my table. And when I do, I do for a reason. (For example, establishing to a coach, and the league in general, that stalling against me is a bad idea. AND giving an exhibition on what to do if you are stalled against. Sadly at the expense of some poor kid who was only doing an established "valid tactic" that he could site all kinds of sources for.)

Sometimes (lots of times). . I lose games I shouldn't. And sometimes at the expense of players. But, thats the game. It would hardly seem fun (for me or my opponents) if I powergamed and always used the best strategies to protect my team and dominate over everyone. . . .

Asperon Thorn

[Digger Goreman]

It's all so relative

[mattgslater]

It's all so relative

Awesome.

[RandomOracle]

However if faced with someone that would stall for turn after turn we think it is unsportsmanlike, and in an environment in which we could rate it, we would rate it low. The reason for this is that it cuts into our enjoyment of the game, and the social aspect of it, By definition, that is what unsportsmanlike means.

I think passing over my players is unsportsmanlike and would rate that tactic low. The reason for this is that it cuts into my enjoyment of the game, and the social aspect of it. By definition, that is what unsportsmanlike means.

It's nice that we have the same definition of "unsportsmanlike". Anything that cuts into our enjoyment of the game.