The thing I've never understood is that why is turtling such a hated strategy? It's the easiest strategy to beat. Already on the first turn your opponent is telling what he is going to do. You will be aware of all the danger zones on the board immediately and because of this information you can engage your enemy in relative peace.

I understand why people don't like turtling, and don't like the "run away" tactic.
I've played against the "run away" tactic in a fairly major event and I didn't like it: it was very frustrating (although his being coached by the judge didn't help my temper.)

But the generalized disdain for not engaging is a problem. There are too many situations where the strategic options are feed your team to a meat grinder or sit back/run.

First, let's all agree that giving figures inconsequential move actions isn't any different or better than just promptly passing. So a rule that says "you must give an action every turn" or "you can't pass more than 3 turns in a row" doesn't fix anything, it just slaps some lipstick on the pig.

Second, and hopefully we can agree on this as well, there are numerous valid reasons not to rush to engage: not marching your close-combat team across the open kill zone, not moving your Batman/Stealthy team out of hindering into clear terrain, not basing the stealthy figure with your ES/D ranged fighter. Running away? How about "I'm ahead, but my mostly ranged team is now down to dealing 2 damage and your bricks with invulnerability are working to base me"? And going back to previous examples: if it's stealth-heavy versus ranged, we're going to leave it to "who went first" to determine who has to give up their advantage to their opponent and mount a forlorn hope? How do you decide what's running away and what's strategic repositioning?

Making a rule, any rule, that forces engagement will punish people for not playing their weakness against the opponent's strength. And generalized disdain expressed by community leaders is nearly as bad when it doesn't also take into account that all situations are not the same. Sometimes "turtling" or running is playing the game and is also engaging in the social aspect, other opinions to the contrary.

Pfffft. That's already happened in a worlda match and it got called "brilliant strategy"

Nail has been hit on head.

Ultimately, my feeling is this. It doesn't matter if/what rule is put in place to attempt to stem non-engagement. The same players that currently build to such a strategy would find a different approach that meets the rule that is equal unfun. If I could figure out a way to make "design a team that makes playing it as much fun for your opponent as it is for you" an objective rule, maybe we'd be getting somewhere.

My disdain is not for players who run or avoid putting themselves in harms way. My disdain is for people who build a team designed not to engage.

I build teams that are designed so that my opponent cannot engage!

That's what happens at our venues. And the owner doesn't want to do individual matches, so all of our IG events are sealed events where a group always ends up winning. My first tournament was against a group of 3 guys who teamed up on me, so I was the first one out. The third tournament (IG Month 2 - Hulk sealed again) was with 4 other players and two of them teamed up on each player, taking them out. It was very frustrating.

Sentinel, that *IS* frustrating.

By which I mean, WHY DOES YOUR VENUE ONLY DO BATTLE ROYAL FOR IG EVENTS?????

That just seems so silly and to reward/encourage team-up behavior...the first thing I noticed about the IG suggested formats was their intentional diversity. So that ONE play style isn't a path to success, but a broader play-style is rewarded.

I don't think any of us mentioned making a rule that will punish people for not playing the game. I just expressed my disdain for players that do that. Yes, not all situations are the same but it's fairly easy while watching a match to determine what the opponent is trying to do.

Example: Team A is up on points and the opponent then run's away with their figures. No strategy to win because they are already down points and would need to score points in order to win, they just don't want Team A to score more points. That's not exactly engaging or playing the game, that's effectively using the rules of the game to stall.

Stalling I can hate.



Turtling, not so much.

In the third round of the tournament, I may be the lowest 2-0 versus you as the highest 1-1. Depending on the cut-off for advancement, if I can keep your VPs low enough, I still may have a higher VP total than you even if I lose to you.

We'd both have 2-1 records. Our records versus each other don't factor into the tiebreaker at all. Only the VPs determine the tie breaker.

You better believe I'm going to be trying to keep you from getting those points that may put you over me.

It's not stalling.

I want to just clarify the line I see between DKJedi and myself. DK seems to dislike ANY "defensive" play style. I am a bit different. I understand mid-game, tournament positioning decisions causing you to retreat (e.g., you've gotten ahead on points, you can't afford to lose more points, etc.)

Where I take issue a a team that is built DESIGNED to be exclusively defense. To hide until the last minutes of the event and then shoot out for a 1 or 2 hit KO, get those few VPs and win the game.

Example - back when your build total counted toward your VPs, if no KOs were scored, the winner was the person with the LOWEST build. A team designed to be (a) slightly underbuilt, say 290 points and (b) barrier/shut down combat for 45 minutes, only to "come out and fight" with their big hitter for the last 5 minutes, hoping to wipe out some of your bystanders and then let time expire. Those are the team I hold in little esteem.

Any way you slice that, it's stalling. You are not playing the game at that point. Is there a difference between sitting there for 5 minutes deciding your next move and running away for 5 minutes? I don't think so. Now that line may be different to others but to me that's stalling.

That's a major flaw in how winners are calculated if you lose the head to head yet still win on points with a tied record. That should be fixed in the next set of rules. If it's good enough for the major sports of the world and the major games of the world, then it should be good enough for HeroClix.

I don't dislike all "defensive" play styles. It's just hard for me to fathom playing a game by not interacting with the opponent. It's the exact team that Norm describes that I dislike the most.

Honestly, I think you should have to completely eliminate your opponent in order to get a win. Anything less than that is a draw in my mind. That could be because I played a lot of Magic and if you didn't finish your first game in a match, it's a draw. But in that game, you can also get 3 games in a match in under 30 minutes. Speaks to how slow the HeroClix game can be when we can't get 1 game done in 50 minutes.

Hogwash.
You and I have discussed this before, so I'm coming into this expecting that neither of us will be able to change the mind of the other on this issue. But I am going to ask that you don't use the term "stalling" on the rules forum to describe something that according to the official rulings is NOT stalling, because I don't want someone coming here looking for an official answer and getting the wrong impression.

Here's the definitions that were given on the back of the army sheets for Origins/Gencon last year:

Now back to your post:

They are absolutely different things. Because you brought up Magic in your post, I'll use that as an example. Running away in Heroclix is like playing a spell in Magic that lets you gain life or counter an opponent's spell--it's defensive and doesn't typically bring you closer to winning, but it makes it harder to your opponent to defeat you. And just like running away in Heroclix, it's a perfectly legal, viable strategy.

I think head to head results are a valid tiebreaker, but I prefer it as the next tiebreaker after points. Having points as a tiebreaker first encourages players to be proactive and aggressive, which you seem to be so fond of.
Speed is relative. I can get a full game of Heroclix done in the time it takes for a single round in a game of Warhammer. I don't think we should try to make Heroclix fit the time structure, but rather should make the time structure fit Heroclix.

Thanks for clarifying. Your take on this is actually a lot closer to mine than I thought it was.