incorrect. this year at gencon i moved my pieces while my opponnet just stayed back and kept moving away. if it wasnt for a couple of key pushes on my part i wouldnt have beat him. it sure can be just one person turtling

o trust me ill come get you. did it at gencon. i play the dang game. i dont sit back and say jeeeezzz......maybe i should just keep passing till they get close enough for me to k.o. a fig then run and hide.

I honestly don't get why anyone cares. It's their game to play. Let them sit there and do nothing forever. You think they're going to keep doing that every game forever? No. No one spends money to stand there for a few hours and then go home. It isn't about how fun it is to watch or if you're bored because they're taking to long. It's their game, let them play it, make them roll in case of a tie, move on and stop whining.

see i used to agree with that..unitl it keeps happening over and over and over again

Running away is NOT turtling.

No, its cowardice.

Turtling and Running Away are 2 seperate tactics, but are not mutually exclusive.

I revile Turtling, but Running Away can be a valid tactic on occasion.

I am still not a fan of Running Away, and would rather go down swinging, rolling for crits, but if the prize is big enough to warrant a win at any cost then ... (everyone has a price)

I have to disagree with the "it takes two to turtle" claim.

Running a turtle strategy isn't really about passing indefinitely. It's about setting up a position and holding it until his opponent moves into range. Once that happens, the turtle will actually take some actions instead of just passing. But until then, he's satisfied just hanging back.

Even if his opponent does get aggressive and come into range, that doesn't change the fact that he employed a turtle strategy.

-J

I know the norm is for a game where neither player takes out a casualty to do a roll off but considering the format of many tournaments giving them a tie instead might be the solution. As the first criteria for the tournament is wins, holding back will take a win away from both players. In a 3 round tournament, a tie is pretty damaging. As no casualties were inflicted, calling the game a tie is not inaccurate.

This is not true, and people who want to dictate "you must engage regardless" really annoy me. Hopefully I'll be forgiven for going a little off-track here.
In a recent sealed event I had a team comprised of two sturdy charging bricks with good damage reducers and one figure with a good short-ranged attack who was, unfortunately, easy to hurt. In the final round my opponent had 2 similar bricks and a figure with a superior range to mine, and he had Outwit x2 plus PC. After some initial dancing around, collection of objects etc, and an attempt at a shot on him (missed) and a return shot on my guy which hit, I ended up one square back from the rim of elevated to protect myself from the Outwit and the superior range. I could have gone to him, of course, hoping he would be stupid with his Outwit and/or that his dice rolls would be singularly poor, but my best bet at a win was to put the burden on him to come to me and engage at short range/close combat. The viable tactic was what I did.

In the same way, a Bat Ally team wants to get positioned in Hindering. Once there, why should they come out into the open to engage the Avengers team that's long on range and damage reducers. A rule that says you have to play to your weakness and the opponent's strength in the name of "playing the game" would be absurd. You are welcome to hold to that as your philosophy for your play, but don't try to impose it on others.

That sounds OK on the surface, but I have seen more than a few games go to a tie on KOs (including 0-0 more than a few times) when both players were trying to get a KO, they just couldn't due to a combo of force construction, map choice and poor dice rolls. They weren't holding back, but the result was the same. Do they get punished with ties?
The game I mentioned above was the final round: we're the only two undefeated so if we had gone to time with no KOs (we didn't, he decided he could handle me up close so we spent the last 20 minutes furiously engaging) due to our mutually cautious play one of us would still have won, and the other would have come in second.

so by yours and many others opinion we should have every match be like the one at gencon where the players barely moved out of there starting areas until the last turn?/ wow...amazing game ya got there

QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rep to you for fighting...i will not run no matter what. the game is to k.o. as many figs as possible to claim points. which is what i always do...engage the enemy

Despite my previous suggestion, I think that there is nothing wrong with not taking an action. I don't do it regularly but there are teams/games that become a situation where whoever sticks their head out first will likely lose so it is in neither player's interest to make a move. If making an offensive move will lose me the game 75% of the time, why should I be forced to make a move? It makes perfect sense to take the tie or the roll off, the former is softened loss and the latter is 25% improvement on my chances of success.

Yes "shock the turtle" scenarios will minimize this from happening but also have the effect of favoring bricks over lighter weight sniper types.