I really hate f***king stalling

[mattgslater]

No the rule for games is that "You are suppose to have fun."

No, the rule for games is that your opponent is supposed to have fun. The underlying assumption is that your opponent is playing a game because he is looking for a challenge with no real personal risk. That's what a game is. You are supposed to offer him that challenge, and to be gracious to him when he does the same for you. Denying your opponent that opportunity just because he's using legal tactics you don't like is petty. I'm not advocating pettiness in the face of pettiness, but I'll admit that I've done it before.

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.

I don't play online games. I also don't play quitters. I used to have some really bad gaming habits, and I've learned, and I'm working to build my crowd of coaches with me. Doing that involves encouraging those who want to get better to do so from within a framework of sportsmanship and friendly competitiveness. Nothing wrecks that like when a veteran coach gives up on the game before it's over. It's one thing when a rookie does it, but I'd only stall on a rookie if he seemed to be enjoying the challenge of trying to crack me. That good coach with the scary Skaven team with 2 Babes, 3 GRs and a RO in the KO bin, no, he's taking the stall, and if he doesn't like it, well, I expect him to understand that he'd do the same to me in a heartbeat.

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. . . .

I disagree. If the rules tilt the game your way, then your opponents should play the way you do. Oh, and if that's true, and if it feels like there should be other ways to do it but there just aren't (and I don't think that's true here), then you should take it up with the rulebook.

See, to me it's fun to get stalled on. For one thing, stalling on me seldom works, because I know the various strategies to beat it with any team I play. Once in awhile it does, probably about as often as I do it myself. For another thing, if my opponent stalls on me, it's because he needs to make the most of his temporary leg up, so there's sort of a bittersweet satisfaction in it. For a third thing, I've got dozens of 0-1, 1-2 and 2-3 losses under my belt, but I've only lost by more than one point five times. I want to keep it that way.

I know a lot of people hate the answer "play better," but the truth of the matter is that stalling as a strategy has a place on the great web of BB strategy, and that place is not at the top in some clearly dominant position. If stall teams dominate your league, that's coincidence. So, yeah, it's one thing if the problem is, "my opponent runs the only good strategy and that strategy doesn't work for me." Then the answer would be "quit." But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that you have an aesthetic problem with an established-but-beatable strategy. There are two good ways to deal with it. You can suck it up, or you can learn to beat it.

[spubbbba]

Most of the crybabies who hate stalling are just no good at the game.

That's just ignorance right there.

I hate stalling because it isn't fun. Which is the general theme of just about all of my posts. I play the game to have good time, and I don't need to win to do it. But someone sitting on the goal line for 5 turns because of an unlucky turn of the dice, takes the fun out of the game.

Someone that uses this defense for stalling is not only has to use a dull tactic, but has to resort to calling their opponents crybabies and bad players. What league do you play in? Or are you another product of Cyanide and fummbl where you can anonymously hide behind an unfriendly game?

Asperon Thorn

I'm coming from 21 years of wargaming at friend's homes, GW hobby centres, tournaments and online playing many other games as well as BB.

In my experience the ratio of pick up games for fun/ok/jerk opponents is about the same in online play as it is face to face.

What you seem to not understand is that people enjoy different aspects of the game. Some like me enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and expect our opponents to stall if it will help them win.

In your example later in this thread because your opponent did something you didn't like then rather than trying to find a way round it you looked for a method to make the game as unpleasant as possible for him and bully him into not doing it again.

In the 1st half fouling the other team to death is a decent strategy if trying to get the ball or force the score is highly unlikely. You increase your chances in the 2nd half and maybe your opponent will feel that it's not worth the risk of losing the players. But spending the rest of the game trying to wipe out his team is rather sad and childish, the fact that you had enough players left to destroy him suggests that he just outplayed you . Not only that but it's not even a very good tactic at stopping the stall as experienced players expect their players to die so won't care about your spite fouls, though they may pay you back and i'd be interested to see that tactic tried against a bashy team with elves.

This is why I used the crybaby label. A grown up would discuss the type of game they want to have with their opponent or just avoid playing them again. But you threw a big strop because someone uses a tactic you dislike to try and win.

In my experience the better I get at this game the less I'm stalled against. Sometimes there will be little I can do about it but I just get on with it and don't expect my opponent to conform to my made up rules of what is fun.

[Joemanji]

*round of applause*

[Don__Vito]

I'd stall this thread if I could.

[SillySod]

Asperon - your whole "I'll foul a staller into the turn and they wont do it again" approach is ridiculous. Mostly because it doesnt work. Over the years I've had -alot- of people trying that trick and only one or two people have successfully forced the score (by setting up a massively inventive frenzy multi-surf). Unless you can force the score then its a worthless strategy.

If your opponent loses their temper and fouls recklessly during the first half then its time to do a victory lap around the board/computer.

Mattgslater - stalling is a dominant strategy in the established competitive environments. You can survive without it but you will lose an awful lot of games that you could/should have won.

I'd stall this thread if I could.

You could try sitting on it. Although I guess that would involve attempting to use actual leg muscles

[Skurk78]

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.

That's what I like about humans, they can do a little bit of both. Want to play a finesse game? Field your catchers, want to bash the opponent, stall a bit and mmaybe kill a few elves in the process? Field your ogre and your blitzers.

I usually play Dark Elves, but you don't hear me complaining because I lose to a chaos team who'll only score in turn 7. The way I see it I could've taken the ball from them if my startegy had been better or if my dice rolls would've been luckier. I want a chance to see if I've learned from my mistakes and if I start complaining to my opponent about his tactics that chance isn't very likely to appear. Nobody likes playing against a whino.

[mattgslater]

Mattgslater - stalling is a dominant strategy in the established competitive environments. You can survive without it but you will lose an awful lot of games that you could/should have won.

Equivocal term: "dominant." You can beat a stall. You need to be able to stall and cope with stalls, and you need to be able to win on other kinds of tempo too. I'd say it's fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of BB strategy, but it's not the only way to succeed, nor are most stalls unbreakable. Also, stalling as a strategy is imperfect even when it works, thanks to all the different 1TTD mechanisms.

I think there's an important difference between progression play and one-off or tournament (non-prog) play here, especially when net points aren't a big deal in the tournament format. Particularly, fouls as threats against stalling in resurrection play are worthless. Frankly, that's not usually a good strategy in league play either, though some fouling may be an effective component in a broader pressure game. Also, over time, league teams end up at much higher development level than almost any tournament allows, and as a rule development favors pressure over stall.

If you're running a tourney and want to discourage stalling, make raw score a major factor, so a 3-2 win counts for more than a 2-1 win. In a league, you have a lower bar, but you have no good alternative to just getting better at forcing TDs or breaking cages.

[Skurk78]

Something that works a little like poison for a cage: 4 ST combined with frenzy. Just pick the arrow on the first throw and you're already closer to the ball carrier, in some cases even in the BC's TZ efter the first block. That'll mess with any stalling play.

[Smeborg]

I am rather enjoying this "Trolls corner" thread, which seems to be more about the social culture of Blood Bowl than about the game itself.

In my experience, something like 80% to 95% of coaches try to win their games rather than lose them (other things being equal, of course). The proportion varies from group to group, and from culture to culture (e.g. by country). But some 5% to 20% of coaches care relatively little about playing to win, putting a higher value on other things (e.g. skilling up their team, protecting their team, causing lots of CAS, making lots of pass completions, creating havoc with a crazy team, etc.). I am more than happy to play against these coaches, but I find it helps if I know in advance (or can work out quickly) what makes them tick. It helps because it enables me to play with the right social attitude and graces, so that their experience of the game (and mine) is enhanced. But it doesn't change the way I respond tactically at the table.

Likewise, a minority of coaches "really hate" certain styles or modes of play (to the point of obvious distress). These things that they dislike may include one or more of:

- Stalling
- Fouling
- One turn scores
- Slayer tactics
- Dwarfs and/or Orcs
- AG4 tactics generally
- etc. (the list is long)

I find it helps to be aware of the dislikes, but purely for social reasons. If my team finds itself playing in one of the above styles, I don't change the style simply because I am aware that my opponent "dislikes" it. That's just emotional blackmail. But I will adapt socially (pertinent example: if making an uncontested stall against a coach who "dislikes" stalling, I will speed up my play in order to politely minimise my opponent's distress).

This social adaptation is relatively easy against a known opponent. It can be more tricky against a new opponent, especially in a tournament, when it is too easy to assume that your opponent is playing to win (not always the case!).

Against newbies playing their first game, I will normally find a good opportunity to foul (so that the newbie realises that it's tactically sound and socially OK to foul). Also against a newbie, I might modify my play in order to give him a better learning experience, but I would normally do so openly (pertinent example: I might avoid the stall, but I would point out to him that I would normally stall).

All the best.

[Darkson]

Posted by Ironjaw deleted - anything in the same vein, and further sanctions will be applied.

[Master Wang]

Posted by Ironjaw deleted - anything in the same vein, and further sanctions will be applied.

Nuts, guess I missed something fun there.

[Angeblich]

Posted by Ironjaw deleted - anything in the same vein, and further sanctions will be applied.

Nuts, guess I missed something fun there.

not fun. plain insults. if it's what i remember.

[Master Wang]

Oh well.

[Asperon Thorn]

In your example later in this thread because your opponent did something you didn't like then rather than trying to find a way round it you looked for a method to make the game as unpleasant as possible for him and bully him into not doing it again.

In the 1st half fouling the other team to death is a decent strategy if trying to get the ball or force the score is highly unlikely. You increase your chances in the 2nd half and maybe your opponent will feel that it's not worth the risk of losing the players. But spending the rest of the game trying to wipe out his team is rather sad and childish, the fact that you had enough players left to destroy him suggests that he just outplayed you . Not only that but it's not even a very good tactic at stopping the stall as experienced players expect their players to die so won't care about your spite fouls, though they may pay you back and i'd be interested to see that tactic tried against a bashy team with elves.

1. I was elves and he was a bashy team. Which is why he thought he could get away with it. He got into his favorable position by "1 reroll 1" early actions in both turns 1 and 2 on my part. Not much tactical error just bad luck.

2. You, as in just about everyone else, missed the point. Yes, In that game I could have very well have stopped that play had I chosen to and gone on and won. I could have chosen to win in the second half as well, having done enough damage in the first half.

But what you plainly didn't see is why I chose not to. That player chose a "valid tactic" that was going to be clearly unfun for me. So I went for a "valid tactic" that would make it fun for me. To call that childish, is absurd. Frankly it is hypocritcal to say that stalling is sportsmanlike, while clearing the pitch is childish. They are both unsportsmanlike. Neither is childish.

Asperon - your whole "I'll foul a staller into the turn and they wont do it again" approach is ridiculous.

It's 10 times more effective then the "leap 2-die against block into the cage" tactic that makes for great stories. But it is fouling in conjunction with crowd surfing. . .since I play dark elves most of the time, I have no lack of frenzy to start nibbling at the edge of cages. Those players either get fouled or surfed. Most of the CAS in the example I used were surfed.

Smeborg makes the most valid point. I tend to tailor my gameplay to my opponent. If someone is going to act like a powergaming ass than I will dismantle them. If someone isn't that good, then I will ussually drop my skill level to make it a good game.

But my points still stand. It isn't the validity or the invalidity of the tactic that is in question. It is the player conduct. The fact that just about everyone defending stalling is appalled by a game in which a pitch was cleared rather than running up the score. . .seems to actually support my argument rather than detract from it.

Asperon Thorn

[RandomOracle]

Frankly it is hypocritcal to say that stalling is sportsmanlike, while clearing the pitch is childish. They are both unsportsmanlike.

Unsportsmanlike only by your definition. Most of us consider the rule book more important than your opinion.