I've wanted to attack my own figures on occasion.

I've wanted it on more than just an occasion. It'd make getting to those AE clicks much easier. And just think of the possibilities with Mind Control!

Fair enough

That could be a very good psychological tactic to use to distract your opponent. The passing just ends up happening because you're otherwise occupied.

Lmao

Now this is simply wrong.

I can play the game without playing to win. I can play with the goal that Vanisher gets at least one kill, or with the goal that I KO my opponents Immortus, or I can even play so that I get Aunt May from my starting area to the opposing starting area.

The game itself will not give other goals beside winning, but I can invent my own goals.

You sir, are awesome!

Sometimes, I just can't help myself but laugh out loud when reading your posts. So funny

Take a deep breath and think about how expensive kids are.

Since my first one I have cut my gaming time from 4 days a week to 4 hours a week.

I don't like games that don't finish (please don't comment on that Harpua). When I play Warhammer, my group plays until someone is completely wiped off the map. I guess the easiest way to explain it is that I wouldn't want to watch the Super Bowl and have it end in a tie or end as soon as someone had more points at the end of the first quarter. It's why I like the college football overtime rule over the NFL overtime rule. Or I wouldn't play Monopoly and stop when I had more money than the other players. I would stop when one player had all of the money. I admit that is not how all players play.

I didn't say that competitive players should apoligize for using broken elements of the game like SIF or Nightcrawler or etc. I dislike players who apologize for it and find that poor sportsmanship because they really don't feel sorry for playing that way. As I said before, Man up and own that you are playing those elements and that you are playing them with the only goal to win the game. I sometimes play that way as well but when I do, I own it and tell the opposing player that I'm playing that way.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. Wanna borrow mine? I love lending it out.

It's interesting that you bring up Monopoly as that specific game had crossed my mind.

The base rules of Monopoly are simple. The game ends with the last man standing. However, in the last edition of the game I have, there's a section covering suggested house rules. One of those is that you play for a predetermined time. If it is agreed upon ahead of time for a game of Monopoly that you will play for 50 minutes, then that is now the rule for that game.

Here are the rules for ending a game of Heroclix:
Note that it doesn't say anything about any one particular one of these carrying any more weight than the others. It simply boils down to whether or not one of those things has occurred.
In the standard OP environment, two of those conditions exist. Both have equal weight to one another. At GenCon there is a set time limit, so even though you feel that the game isn't really over until there's one man standing, the rules are not on your side and a win by elimination is no more of a win than one from points.

You don't understand that someone play a games and doesn't care if he wins or not ? I do.

There is a difference between playing fair, and doing your best, and trying cut-throat to win. In heroclix, I sometimes do some moves knowing it's not the best thing to do, but finding it more enjoyable to do it like rather than playing just to win and making a move that is not fun for both players. Some of the moves i make are "for fun" rather than "to win", then i rely on dice.


Well, i like heroclix because it has a bunch of randomness (dice) in it, and i believe randomness IS a factor in balancing the game out. I disagree the best games are those in which the more skilled player wins. Because sometimes (for example when you play with you own children, or your best friends) it's better to have a game where anyone, skilled or not, has a chance at winning. The best games are those where everyone has fun, and since it's not fun to loose everytime (like it's no fun to win everytime) games with some randomness are welcome, and fun. If i wanted a game of pure wits and IQ, i would play chess. I play heroclix because it's partly strategy, partly super-heroes mini, partly dice randomness, and wholly fun for me and the others playing with me.

Sure. I agree. But it's still interesting to consider stalling/turtling/passing in every possible game environment since we are discussing "does it needs a ruling or not"...


Seriously, do you have children ? If yes, then you should understand that you can play to play and absolutely not trying to win, even letting the other win... And still having a HELL OF FUN...

Also, (and i won't quote) you seems quite stubborn (sorry if the word is not well chosen, it's not my native language - i don't want to sound rude, just don't know any better word) in stating that nobody can play this game for anything other to win because the game itself is about ko-ing figures from other player...

But really, you can have your own goal, like using some character you like and see how they perform, or even just push the figures on the board randomly, rolling dice, and having fun, without caring about strategy at all, and just watching how the miniature heroes are doing ...

That's a miniature hero game remember ? for me it's first and foremost a family & friends game ! The competition is one tiny bit of it (and sometimes a pain, since here, on the board, all seems to gravitate around this competition, it's tiring...)

One day i even played at a tournament, with a secret bet with another player, and we were both trying to have the shortest possible match each round (time/clock wise) so we were just trying to get either opponent or our own figures Koed as fast as we can. The bet was more important to us than the prize or the competition at hand officially in the event. We were both called silly by other players there, and that was a HUGE part of the fun !

More examples : I know at least one player that constantly try to finish "last one" of any tournament hoping that there will be some prize (fellowship) randomly awarded to him OR given to the one who is last.

I also know about someone who go to tournament trying to make the silliest teams (usually theme) and just play with the figures as if they were the real characters (meaning, even if it's the best thing to do with superman to hit and run, he rush towards the biggest ennemy at the first opportunity and stay there : he is superman afterall)

Not all players play to win.
And i'm glad it's the case !
Clix would be boring for me and too much alike magic the gathering if it was not like that.

Alright. Let's say you are playing a game, and your goal is that Vanisher gets at least one kill. Now, let's suppose that your Vanisher KO's an opposing character early in the game.

Do you concede the game? Do you just stop playing? Do you no longer attack your opponents figures or defend your own?

No. You continue to attempt to win the game until it ends. You play to win. Creating minor goals for yourself in addition to winning does not alter this fact.

You can play to win without caring, or without winning even being your main goal. By placing your figures on the map and attempting to KO opposing pieces, you are playing to win.

The difference is in whether you play to win, or play strictly to win. Winning is one of several goals that I have when I play. Having fun, socializing, and and earning more KO's for Molly Hayes are other goals.