The Cowardly Win?

[InfinityMax]

Gulp, just to be clear - I don't begrudge you that win. I try not to play the clock, but what you did was tactically and strategically sound. I do have a problem with people who deliberately hamstring their front lines by hiding one member of a squad in a corner somewhere just so they don't lose a whole squad - this is not strategically sound, and without a time limit, would be a horribly bad idea. But falling back in the face of a superior force when you know that a) anything else will be disastrous and b) the confrontation is about to end is not bad tactics.

For instance, if two forces met in real life, and one pounded the other to stuffing, and then retreated to protect its key investment when that side knew UN peacekeepers were about to stop the fight, that would be a sound tactical decision.

I don't much like winning that way, but that doesn't make it a bad move.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

Gulp, just to be clear - I don't begrudge you that win. I try not to play the clock, but what you did was tactically and strategically sound. I do have a problem with people who deliberately hamstring their front lines by hiding one member of a squad in a corner somewhere just so they don't lose a whole squad - this is not strategically sound, and without a time limit, would be a horribly bad idea. But falling back in the face of a superior force when you know that a) anything else will be disastrous and b) the confrontation is about to end is not bad tactics.

For instance, if two forces met in real life, and one pounded the other to stuffing, and then retreated to protect its key investment when that side knew UN peacekeepers were about to stop the fight, that would be a sound tactical decision.

I don't much like winning that way, but that doesn't make it a bad move.

I appreciate the clarification. I hesitated a moment to wonder if you had a negative reaction to the post, but I figured you were addressing the idea of stalling or making the clock, an unwanted but practical necessity to tournament organization, a tool for winning. I didn't like winning that way, and I wasn't proud of it. To add more to the story, I was undefeated. If I was 0-3 I may have just said 'oh well' and took the defeat.

I'm not a competitive person, and I'm happy being that way. The only thing I don't like about tournaments is that they're more competitive than I like, by definition. Now that I think about it, the thing I like most about tournaments is the weeks before when my friends and I are testing out tournament armies.

I made the decision to run away in order to win. I had some mixed emotions, and I'm glad to get some support from people on this shiny new site!

[DarkBladeCB]

Originally Posted by Gulp

I appreciate the clarification. I hesitated a moment to wonder if you had a negative reaction to the post, but I figured you were addressing the idea of stalling or making the clock, an unwanted but practical necessity to tournament organization, a tool for winning. I didn't like winning that way, and I wasn't proud of it. To add more to the story, I was undefeated. If I was 0-3 I may have just said 'oh well' and took the defeat.

I'm not a competitive person, and I'm happy being that way. The only thing I don't like about tournaments is that they're more competitive than I like, by definition. Now that I think about it, the thing I like most about tournaments is the weeks before when my friends and I are testing out tournament armies.

I made the decision to run away in order to win. I had some mixed emotions, and I'm glad to get some support from people on this shiny new site!

I consider myself a particularly competitive person. The point of going to tournaments is to try and win as many games as possible and I've not yet played in a Heroscape tournament, but I have played in many (cards and miniatures) and both won and lost my fair share of games. I have won games due to time and games due to skill and I've lost games because of time and lost games because of skill. There's luck, too, which has played a factor in both wins and loses.

But I will say this: the desire to win has never overcome my desire to play with a sense of integrity and in the nature of good fun. I would like to think that most players feel the very same way. When I play a game, particularly in a tournament, I go in hoping to win the game, but if I am out-played or the cards didn't come right, there isn't anything you can do, but I feel it's important to handle one's self with class and character and that in and of itself leads a to a positive experience.

That, then, to me is the big difference. It's usually very clear very quickly whether an individual is going to be playing a fair, honest, competitive game or whether they're just doing whatever they can to win a prize or what have you. Nobody likes to play with those people. Those are the sorts of people that will stall and rules lawyer and do whatever they can to get the advantage... and I think it's this behavior in general that should be frowned upon. After a long, good natured battle that's gone to the last minute (and isn't that, in a way, what we all want? Something hard fought and drawn out and appropriately epic? This IS Heroscape, after all), trying to pull back to try and grab victory is just a sound play and I don't think anyone, after having gone through such a great game, would ever take offense to that. There was a thread a while back about "what you would do to win"--and that's what this all comes back to.

Just play the game right and with integrity and I think there won't ever be any problems with a "cowardly win," so long as it's in the right spirit and everyone has a good time.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Gulp

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

Gulp, you're dancing avatar is mildly amusing with the thread title sitting under it.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

Gulp, you're dancing avatar is mildly amusing with the thread title sitting under it.

LOL. Nice catch.

[guido]

I personally prefer to play 'balls to the wall' style until someone is defeated. Depending on the circumstances, I can almost be a Speed Chess styled Heroscaper (Speed Scape?). In all my impressive 5 Tournament battles, I've only come close to the time limit once (five minutes after the battle was over and the battle would have been, well, over.) and this, I suspect, was due to intentional stalling on my opponent's part.

That said, I think its stupid to dig a hole deeper in order to climb out of it. All armies retreat at some point (save the Spartans) and it should not be considered poor sportsmanship. The rats and ninjas were designed to run away, as well as any unit with disengage. It is almost expected that you will run away with at least one of your figures if you draft a runaway style unit; so why shouldn't Charos be allowed to run away? There are many cases in games I have played where running away served to lure my enemy in closer. I just don't see the evil in it; its perfectly normal game play.

[Junge Roman]

This conversation illustrates the need for victory conditions other than "kill 'em all." Of course there will be strategic retreats. It is an entirely appropriate strategy given the circumstances. If the victory condition were to be, say, control the 3 hexes on the inside of the large ruin, or control the spaces at each end of the bridge, or the glyph, or whatever, (for 2 rounds or some other time period) then running away would be a very bad strategy. These conditions would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, but I think they could solve the problem.

Alternatively, points could be awarded for controlling certain positions at the end of the time limit, and these would be in addition to kills. In this mode, running away would also be penalized, but would still be viable in some circumstances. I think I like this idea the best.

Hmmm, what's my motivation for bringing my archers down off this hill?

[Kroc]

Originally Posted by Junge Roman

This conversation illustrates the need for victory conditions other than "kill 'em all." Of course there will be strategic retreats. It is an entirely appropriate strategy given the circumstances. If the victory condition were to be, say, control the 3 hexes on the inside of the large ruin, or control the spaces at each end of the bridge, or the glyph, or whatever, (for 2 rounds or some other time period) then running away would be a very bad strategy. These conditions would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, but I think they could solve the problem.

I don't do tournaments, living in Turkey, but I use win conditions like this all the time because I play with more than 2 players. With 3 player kill-them-all games the advantages of hanging back are just too high. I agree they would be good ideas for games with time limits as well.

After all in the real world few wars end with one side being wiped out, most end when someone controls certain territory.

[Revdyer]

I think the closest analogy to this situation of saving a guy as the time runs out is from American football. How many games have you seen end with the team that is ahead "running out the clock" by snapping the ball and having the quarterback fall on it? I think we've all seen plenty of those games. The win is quite legal and the tactic is common. It does leave a bit of "aw shucks" taste in the mouth though.

The time limit is a fact in tournament play. I've even been known, myself, to try an otherwise suicide aggressive attack when there wasn't much time left and I felt I had nothing to lose, in ways that I would not have done if I were just a bit behind and grinding away at the opponent. I don't know of any way, short of the various neat house rules proposed or used, to avoid the players' awareness of the clock.

I don't think pulling back with one minute left to protect a valuable hero with one life left is poor sportsmanship. It does leave a bit of an "aw shucks" taste, but not a terribly bad one.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by Junge Roman

This conversation illustrates the need for victory conditions other than "kill 'em all." Of course there will be strategic retreats. It is an entirely appropriate strategy given the circumstances. If the victory condition were to be, say, control the 3 hexes on the inside of the large ruin, or control the spaces at each end of the bridge, or the glyph, or whatever, (for 2 rounds or some other time period) then running away would be a very bad strategy. These conditions would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, but I think they could solve the problem.

Alternatively, points could be awarded for controlling certain positions at the end of the time limit, and these would be in addition to kills. In this mode, running away would also be penalized, but would still be viable in some circumstances. I think I like this idea the best.

Hmmm, what's my motivation for bringing my archers down off this hill?

Has anyone played in any tournaments that used alternative victory conditions than just kill 'em all? I've been thinking about trying to put together a small tournament and maybe it would be interesting to have a variety of winning conditions. Maybe there could be a staring contest or a test of strength!!

[Sweetcurse]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

I would have been irritated, were I the other player. The time limit is there for completely non-game reasons - keep the tourney moving, equal time for everyone - but it is not there as a game mechanic. That it does sometimes become a game mechanic is inevitable, but had there been no time limit, would you have played the same way?

It appears to me that you beat a superior foe with the clock, not with any mastery of the game.

That's just me, though. Other people might not have a problem with it. But this kind of thing is why I don't do tournaments any more.

Either that or you're just unwilling to give me a rematch.

[MI_Tiger]

I had a different but related situation at my last tournament. We were playing on Broken Skyline, and at the end of the game my opponent had Raelin and one Airborn Elite on one of the "pillars" that are only accessible via a ladder. I only had double-spaced, non-ranged figures remaining (Dumutef and a Marrden Hound or 2). I couldn't attack his units from range, and I couldn't climb the ladders to use a melee attack. All I could do was pull out of range to avoid being killed. My opponent was ahead on points so he won the game.

So, did my opponent have an obligation to come down off his sniper perch and fight to the finish? I don't think so. He played the map better than I did and deserved the win. I have no problems with how the game ended (other than kicking myself for not killing the AE while I still had some range alive ). By the same token, I have no problem with a player retreating at the end to preserve a point win.

If anyone thinks that retreating when time is expiring is unsportsmanlike, then do you think the same about him not coming off the ladder?