The Cowardly Win?

[Jexik]

I agree, that's a real cool way to handle the problem!

To Gulp, if that happened to me, I'd probably be annoyed, but I don't think I'd fault you for it at all. I'd probably whine later, but it'd be more because I lost and allowed you to get a lead like that anyway. I'd kick myself about not finishing off your hero sooner, or bemoan the dice rolls, rather than call you a cheater. Unless you did actually cheat. Then I'd be mad.

I found myself doing something similar in a game at a tournament here in Illinois. I was winning by a decent spread, and my Nilfheim had 5 wound markers on it, and I had the last of my opponents' figures engaged to my Minions about 10 spaces away. To prevent from losing the points, I spent one turn to send Nilfheim back toward my starting zone. The game still finished on time, but I felt cheesy for taking away the chance to get vengeance on Nilf.

In fact, I think that not playing the clock at all is probably one of my weaknesses as a player, but I don't really anticipate changing that any time soon. If I hear that time is going short, I start rolling my dice and talking very quickly. Maybe it causes me to make bad choices, maybe my armies are just easy to play, or maybe they just die really fast. But all of the 21 tournament games I've played have finished before time was called. A few got really close, but I've never won or lost a game on time at a tournament.

I think that it'd be great if we could somehow implement a chess-clock like system into the game at an extremely competitive event (if and when those exist), but with all the actions that you can take during another player's turn, "Are you sure you have line of sight?", "Oh wait, let me roll defense, even though no skulls were rolled, and then think about where I want to move my last two deathreavers for the next 5 minutes" I see them making just as many problems as they solve, and being a huge hassle.

[TexMex]

The first thing I thought of upon reading this post was the rule in chess where if there are 50 consecutive moves and no pieces are captured the game is a draw. In such a case, the situation may be that one player has been losing terribly and therefore adopts a new strategy - avoing capture until the game is legally over. I find it difficult to call this poor sportsmanship as trying to avoid your opponent's pieces can be a far more complex strategy than that of the opponent trying to do the capturing - particularly if they have more pieces. Of course, a good point has been brought up concerning whether or not a losing player would implement said strategy were time not a factor. However, I see the use of a limited number of rounds as the same factor. Or am I the only one who playes with rounds outside of official scenarious

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by TexMex

Or am I the only one who playes with rounds outside of official scenarious

I like playing to the bitter end.

I keep track of when rounds end for order marker purposes, but when I play at my or one of my friends' houses, we rarely play with any round or time limit at all. We may end a game early if someone is getting stomped and the outcome seems obvious, but most of the time we play to the end. Once or twice, when preparing for a tournament a couple days away, I've been known to put down a clock and end a game after the listed time limit for that event.

I like decisive games, and sometime they get much closer than you'd expect- I think that's one of the best things about this game. I've seen Kyntela Gwyn take out Isamu on the last turn of a game before, as well as 5 little deathreavers kill both Marcus and Me-Burq-Sa; I thought it was hilarious, even though I was on the losing side both times.

[Kahrma]

I wouldn't say that the clock is not a game mechanic. In plenty of official scenarios, round limits are used. These same scenarios often use points left on the board to determine a victor. To me, there is little difference between holding out against an opponent in the last few minutes or in the last couple rounds.

As far as stalling vs. running - I think most here would agree that stalling is clearly the most objectionable of the two. Dilly-dallying to run down time when you're ahead on points is downright irritating. Evading your enemy in the final minutes/rounds can take some forethought and skill, and IMHO is not necessarily unsportsmanlike.

[Boozehammer]

Originally Posted by Kahrma

As far as stalling vs. running - I think most here would agree that stalling is clearly the most objectionable of the two. Dilly-dallying to run down time when you're ahead on points is downright irritating. Evading your enemy in the final minutes/rounds can take some forethought and skill, and IMHO is not necessarily unsportsmanlike.

I came into the thread to post exactly this.

I think that's the line: Stalling during your go is unsportsmanlike, evading/retreating is not.

I go by the rule that if someone did either against me, would I get annoyed?

I would definitely get annoyed by someone deliberately going slowly taking their turn, or straight up stalling, taking extra time. That's... that's ridiculous. The thought makes me a little angry right now just thinking about!

But I wouldn't get angry if someone took a look at the board, did the math, and began retreating.

Why? Because retreating still gives me a chance to play, and win. Stalling takes that opportunity away from me.

My tournament experience in retreating, or rather, not advancing: In a tournament match last National Heroscape Day, I played Browncoat and his orc army. There were only a few minutes left, and he had a squad or two of orcs left, and I had an undamaged Q9 left. Both of us were on height, but out of range of each other. I was ahead on points.

I counted up the points, and told Browncoat "Look, I'm ahead on points. I'm not getting down off height and rushing, ok? You're going to have to come to me." Which he did. I ended up winning the game, and in a non-timed environment I think the outcome would've been the same. I think the real thing to make sure of is if you do have to stand your ground or retreat or something similar, communicate that to your opponent. Much less chance of friction that way.

Browncoat was a professional about the whole thing. That's his style.

[Nadom]

Originally Posted by Kahrma

As far as stalling vs. running - I think most here would agree that stalling is clearly the most objectionable of the two.

Agreed. Run like heck (is the alternative to heck ok here?), but set your markers and roll your dice with all the promptness you'd hope an opponent to use if they were in your shoes.

Originally Posted by Jexik

I've seen Kyntela Gwyn take out Isamu on the last turn of a game before, as well as 5 little deathreavers kill both Marcus and Me-Burq-Sa

I'll go one better... I've seen 3 deathreavers take out Q9 (he gave up height to them) and I've seen Eldgrim kill Charos (granted, Eldgrim had three order markers and Charos was "sleeping," but still). Anything can happen, especially when players get desperate.

[Agent Minivann]

I don't have a problem with winning that way, but I would rather not if I could help it. I wouldn't be sitting there saying, "In your face!" but I don't do that as it is. I'm not going to think of someone doing this in a bad light unless they are being a jerk about it when they do it. It's a different animal entirely if someone does this to you and is apologetic about it. Of course if it is a regular occurrence I might start to think otherwise. It's not stalling or underhanded. I think it's just one of those things like when Grimnak chomps 3 consecutive full health heroes in a game. Sometimes the dice gods are against you.

If time was not an issue I would try to run until I feel I get myself into position to attack. I think it is a viable and realistic last resort. You know you're toast if you just stand and fight, but you might come out alive if you can get them to chase you into a trap.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by Boozehammer

I think the real thing to make sure of is if you do have to stand your ground or retreat or something similar, communicate that to your opponent. Much less chance of friction that way.

.

Yup, I think that sounds by far the best way to go about doing things. I mean, in every timed game I have ever played- be it a sport like Football or a boardgame like Risk- being able to run the clock is part of the game. The only thing you have to do is make sure that your opponent does not take offense at this type of behavior; a board game win is not worth a friendship after all.

[Gulp]

Hey Chimpy, your signature seems oddly appropriate for this thread.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Hey Chimpy, your signature seems oddly appropriate for this thread.

I aim to please.

[MechaBeast]

In a tournament for cash and prizes? Hellz yeah I'll fall back with my heroes and squads to conserve points. But, I won't stall. If I believe that I can out maneuver my opponent while time is running out then I feel that is an accepted strategy. If someone calls 5 mins to go, I'm not going to take 4 mins falling back 5 spaces.

I'm sure this couldn't be implemented at every tourney but what if there were chess style timers at tables to keep turns under 3-5 minutes?

[rdhight]

Originally Posted by Gulp

I did not stall and pretend like it was taking me a while to make up my mind. Actually my opponent apparently didn't know what I was doing, and he was just taking his time.

...

In a Heroscape battle, I think it is still not unreasonable to say that if your army can't catch, corner and kill your enemy, then maybe your opponent deserves at least a tiny crumb of "respect."

I think the line, if it's there, has to do with your control of your your army and your control over time. You own your pieces and how you move them is up to you. If you want to advance Q9, retreat him, or run him in a circle, you have the right to do so, no matter what. But the time we have to complete a match is common property. Taking more than your fair share of it is a different matter. So I would say that by moving fast, you stayed within the bounds of good sportsmanship.

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

The winning player is going to make the losing player be the aggressor and come get him. That is the reality of a time limit.

Tough! very tough to say a player is a coward for protecting their pieces. Time limits are what causes this issue but playing at the end to protect what you have accomplished is not cowardly. Playing the entire game in an effort to time the game out and win by points is pretty sorry, but I don't see many players do that.

I agree completely. Part of Heroscape is that sometimes the pressure to advance and attack is on you, and sometimes you get to put that pressure on the opponent. It's not a flaw in the game, and it's not just an endgame thing, either. When I sit down to play Heroscape, I don't have any right to expect my opponent to move toward me early, middle, or late.

Time limits are just one thing that can do this. Range can do it to melee. Longer range can do it to shorter range. The wound glyph can do it. Being in control of good glyphs in general can do it. Iskra/Rechets, unDropped AE, and dead Thanos can do it.