Slowing down play...A valid tactic.

[Dave]

it's not the waiting that's unsporting .. it's the killing off the opposing team bit that is ..

[Cooper]

I totally disagree that stopping in from of the ez is beardy. If your defence is incapable of punishing me for standing around and not bothering to score then you utterly deserve it. If you can't apply enough pressure to make the staller consider running in the ball, then why should he do so and offer you a chance to score. That's like him being upset that you don't field a runner on defence because he can't block him. You have to play to your strengths, and giving faster teams time to score is generally not clever. It might annoy me if someone did it to me, but only from a game tactical perspective, I'd not consider it unsporting.

I agree with Slinky here. It would be plain stupid to score with Dwarves in turn 6 when your Woodelf opponent has 2 more turns to score. Especially if he doesn''t put pressure on your carrier.

If i was the woodelf coach and the dwarf scored against me in turn 6 i would almost consider it bad sportsmanship: he isn't playing to win. Drawing or winning that particular game because of that would leave a bad taste in my mouth, like i didn't deserve it...

W

[Dave]

he's playin in a differen style, nothing to do with bad sportmanship ..

he may be trying chet's 2 turn score with dwarf tactic ??

[Cooper]

he's playin in a differen style, nothing to do with bad sportmanship ..

he may be trying chet's 2 turn score with dwarf tactic ??

Oh, as long as he is doing to win there is nothing wrong with it...I just hate it when people throw away their games.
...and that happens...

Don't get me wrong, if it is a mistake there is nothing wrong with it either...i just don't like winning when it is not really my effort that made me win, but rather the "other playing style" from the other.
For me it is much more satisfying to lose a nervebreaking game without mistakes against someone, , than to win a game because my opponent made some strange choices/mistakes.

W

[narkotic]

I totally disagree that stopping in from of the ez is beardy. If your defence is incapable of punishing me for standing around and not bothering to score then you utterly deserve it. If you can't apply enough pressure to make the staller consider running in the ball, then why should he do so and offer you a chance to score. That's like him being upset that you don't field a runner on defence because he can't block him. You have to play to your strengths, and giving faster teams time to score is generally not clever. It might annoy me if someone did it to me, but only from a game tactical perspective, I'd not consider it unsporting.

I agree with Slinky here. It would be plain stupid to score with Dwarves in turn 6 when your Woodelf opponent has 2 more turns to score. Especially if he doesn''t put pressure on your carrier.

If i was the woodelf coach and the dwarf scored against me in turn 6 i would almost consider it bad sportsmanship: he isn't playing to win. Drawing or winning that particular game because of that would leave a bad taste in my mouth, like i didn't deserve it...

W

Sorry, but this is a generalisation and to say "if I'm able to stand before the opponent's EZ for turns, it's his own fault" is far too easy.

I once played with CD against Dwarfs, the game was even, I was leading 1:0 at the end of the first half and we had scorching hot weather. In the second half he rolled no 1s for heat, whereas I rolled 1s for 7 out of 11 players. What did he do, ran to the EZ, caged there and beat my 5 remaining players up, fouling the ones lying prone and scored in the 8th turn for 1:1. It was the most boring game in my entire life.

The same goes for matches where one coach has incredible bad luck and most of his players land in the KO-box or are Badly hurt. If my opponent would pull an EZ-stalling in this situation, he would be off my list of opponents I play against in the future. That kind of coach proves that for retaining a 300% win chance he's willing to decrease my fun I have from this match to 5%. That's just bad sportmanship.

[Slinky78]

Yes it's a generalisation because I doubt anyone can be bothered to go over every possible scenario.
In your given situation above, if it was a friendly I'd obviously score, because it's a waste of both our lives sat doing that. If it was the final of the bloodbowl, and it was for 2-1, then I'm sorry I'm just not a nice enough person to score, I would sit there, and to make sure you don't stop me I'd kill your five players. It's bloodbowl, not flowery-hippy-mincer ball. It's also a game of dice, so luck is a factor, sometimes it screws you.
Tournament this weekend, I had a game where I was going through his armour at blocks like butter, and he really didn't stand a chance through no fault of his own. So should I have then just set 3 guys on the field so he can score to make up for his bad luck?
9 times out of 10 if it was 1-1 I'd want to score quickly and get the chance to go 2-1 on you anyway.
Going back to the original point of this thread (which was a generalisation as well) delaying is a legitimate tactic imo; like all tactics there are times when it is useful and/or appropriate.

[Skummy]

he may be trying chet's 2 turn score with dwarf tactic ??

My Skaven took 8 turns to score against Chet in the last round of Gumpta.

I'm sorry, but if you don't play defence I'm not going to score quickly and let you get back in the game.

[squig87]

he may be trying chet's 2 turn score with dwarf tactic ??

My Skaven took 8 turns to score against Chet in the last round of Gumpta.

I'm sorry, but if you don't play defence I'm not going to score quickly and let you get back in the game.

If 1 turners arnt considered beardy then this definatly isnt. If its an important game or a game I dont want to loose then hell, I'd stall for 8 turns.

Skummy is right, your opposition has gotta be really stupid not to attempt at the ball otherwise it is game over. I stalled for a good 6 turns the other day with my orcs against dark elves since they were attempting to run away.

I dont consider it beardy to stand around and try to accumulate star player points either. Since when has it been beardy to score lots of touchdowns? So why is ganging up and hitting people considered beardy? Both of them get you SPP but casualties get you less.

Squig

[DoubleSkulls]

If you are good enough on defence you probably wont get caught out very often, and you ought to be confident enough in your skills that if you can score with 4 turns left then you should score and believe you can turn your opponent over and maybe get another yourself.

Stalling is a perfectly valid tactic. Particularly the 1 or 2 turn stall at the end of a half to ensure your opponent does not have enough time to get one back.

I only object if someone is stalling when they are already in the lead, because once you are 2 up you ought to feel confident about your chances of winning.

[Bookman]

Stalling is clearly a valid tactic and I've got little to no problem with it (though I won't do it if I feel like it is taking the fun out of a friendly game for my opponent -- that's just me, though).

What I don't like is stalling for six turns when you're losing and playing for the tie. Go ahead and score and try to turn the other guy over and win the bloody game, for goodness sake.

B

[leblanc13]

I hate tying. I would rather lose a close game than tie.... Well.. Almost.

I see both sides of this issue. I am starting to weigh towards playing a slow grinding game with the dwarves as opposed to giving the ball back to a high scoring opponent. Let them take the ball away if they can.

I don't agree that this tactic is valid with all teams, however with dwarves and orcs I see it as valid.

[Skummy]

IMO, it's not so much who you're playing with that determines whether or not you should stall - it's who you are playing against. If there is a pro Elf team on the other side of the pitch, then stall away as much as you can, since they'll probably only need a couple of 2+ rolls to make you regret it.

[Nosuphoru]

IMHO: It depends if something important is on the line.

If you are just playing a friend in a "fun" match, it is beardy. The whole point is to play the game. If neither of you are really playing, whats the point? (Waiting for a better opportunity, or slowly chugging up the field with a slow team don't count)

However, if it is a tournament and grand prize is a really rare fig, or $$$, then anything goes, cuz then it is serious.

An old friend of mine used to say "It's all fun and games...until money is on the line."

[Cooper]

IMHO: It depends if something important is on the line.

If you are just playing a friend in a "fun" match, it is beardy. The whole point is to play the game. If neither of you are really playing, whats the point? (Waiting for a better opportunity, or slowly chugging up the field with a slow team don't count)

However, if it is a tournament and grand prize is a really rare fig, or $$$, then anything goes, cuz then it is serious.

An old friend of mine used to say "It's all fun and games...until money is on the line."

I don't think i play my tournament games any different from regular games...and i would like my opponents to try and win in regular games as well...

When playing chess, and you are 1 pawn ahead, you could see it beardy to trade all your big guns, just to win the endgame with that 1 pawn more...I see it as the safest way to win...and if your opponent lets you trade all the stuff, he sin't playing it right. (if your opponent lets you stall...)

W

[Dave]

I think we all agree that 'stalling' 'taking your time' or in other words 'Clock Management' is NOT a problem but a valid strategy.

The point is doing this against opponents that can't do sh!t about it, and even killing them off. That ain't nice.