I was locked in a room at NY regional, my own damn fault! My opponent out activated me opened door shot me.He tried to kill mt locked up figs so he could gain a 3pt win.
the danger of lock down is why they say
"override, don't leave home without it"
| SWMGAMERS.com Forums https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/ |
|
| Losing on purpose https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=221&t=15509 |
Page 3 of 5 |
| Author: | Grand Moff Boris [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
UggieDemo wrote: I'm a little confused. Me and Tim finished our game quite early. How would that be stalling? The entire discussion has been centered around the statement - and I have no idea where it originated without rereading, which I don't have time to do right now - that you only had a 2 pt. win. Is that false? |
|
| Author: | SvenBlackSunVigo [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Alright im going to appologise in advance for the spelling im on phone my computer doesnt want to work today so bare with me. On the subject of lockout, my question to you is if a person in my shoes sees the opponents squad as an almost auto loss however sees a weakness in the squad and takes advantage of it why should they be punished. I deliberatly waited to move leia luke a mouse doid and han last so i could take advantage of the ugnaughts positioning and kill them which left han out in the open for shots if i did not win initiative. However the dice were rolling very good in my favor and retreated han to cover. The locked door. The following turn seen an opening for lobot and took it once again leaving han out for a can of butt whoop. And i rolled intiative again retreating for cover. He sent momaw into kill of mouse droids and did xhowever i was still uo in points. By lobots death. Hiw should |
|
| Author: | SvenBlackSunVigo [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Sorry for finishing last post phone screwed up. But how is that wrong. If you werent meant to use tactics in this game why make doors at all that is part of the whole tactical annalisis when you sit down against an opponet. Really with out door control why not put it in a gladiator arena cause thats what it would be you have to out smart and out strategize your opponet. I also beat him well before the 30 mins so by no means was i stalling. Please explain your reasoning |
|
| Author: | greentime [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Using door control to absolutely prevent interaction and end the game on tiebreakers, in my opinion, should not be allowed. I have no complaints about however a player uses door control as long as they continue to attack their opponent. Killing your opponent's door control, locking a door(s), and then declaring that you win by points after the five-round-noninteraction rule kicks in should not be part of the game. |
|
| Author: | Grand Moff Boris [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
greentime wrote: I would fully support changing the floor rules so that a playoff game cannot end by five turns non-engagement unless at least one player has no pieces which can attack. In fact, I think we ought to do that. I will never support this. |
|
| Author: | greentime [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Grand Moff Boris wrote: greentime wrote: I would fully support changing the floor rules so that a playoff game cannot end by five turns non-engagement unless at least one player has no pieces which can attack. In fact, I think we ought to do that. I will never support this. Why? I mean, you are the guy who posted about a thousand times last year about how "some players" were ruining the game by killing all the door control with a lancer and stalling their way to lockout victories. As far as I can tell that actually never happened, but holy crap, you sure insisted that it did, and that we absolutely had to keep that from happening again. |
|
| Author: | SvenBlackSunVigo [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
In my opinion war is not 2 teams marching down a field with all that is put into it for the outcome to be blood and a masacre. dont get me wrong war is a violent and bloody mess however there is logic and tactics behind it you dont just march into a battle that you know you are going to lose and just hope for the best no you walk in know the opponets weakness and go for it. the thing is why should it be wrong to do that you have peiced apart the squad and any hope of getting to you the game is done and over, one of two things are going to happen. 1 the opponent is going to rat hole and make a death trap away from were you are forcing you to have to come out. which if you are already in the lead for points and are in a position not to have to worry about it your not going to. or 2 you are going to out activate them pop out shoot them save a override for last and then lock out and repeat again. do you want to play this game cause i sure dont if that is what it would come down to |
|
| Author: | greentime [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
SvenBlackSunVigo wrote: In my opinion war is not 2 teams marching down a field with all that is put into it for the outcome to be blood and a masacre. dont get me wrong war is a violent and bloody mess however there is logic and tactics behind it you dont just march into a battle that you know you are going to lose and just hope for the best no you walk in know the opponets weakness and go for it. the thing is why should it be wrong to do that you have peiced apart the squad and any hope of getting to you the game is done and over, one of two things are going to happen. 1 the opponent is going to rat hole and make a death trap away from were you are forcing you to have to come out. which if you are already in the lead for points and are in a position not to have to worry about it your not going to. or 2 you are going to out activate them pop out shoot them save a override for last and then lock out and repeat again. do you want to play this game cause i sure dont if that is what it would come down to If your opponent resigns, they resign. If you pick them apart over 15 turns via door shenanigans and killing one piece every round, good for you. If they make a death trap somewhere else on the map, leave an unlocked door and call a judge about stalling. Their building a deathtrap in a corner is no better and no worse than you preventing any interaction by locking every door. Both of those players are stalling, as far as I'm concerned. Neither is playing minis. What I am talking about would affect very few games, and affect the outcome of very few of those games. Am I seriously writing in such a confusing manner that it sounds as though I want some radical overhaul of the rules that would change the results of many games? I don't! All I am talking about is a very specific set of rare circumstances, which happened to occur at the Kokomo regional, which I why I brought it up. 90+% of the time the player who earned "victory*" by lockout would have been able to earn a real victory by using door control dominance to play minis. All I want is to force players to do that. |
|
| Author: | SvenBlackSunVigo [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
so what you are saying is that you what to play cat an mouse, i lock the doors around you open this one, oh you move almost to that one well i lock that one and open a new one. yeah and that is not stalling then i dont know what is. cause really if you have no way in your done bottom line. why bother going through with the actions just to appease them really cause that is what i see you saying. Lock out is a legit win, yes it is not killing all the opponets pieces but you are thinking outside of the box...really that is it it is called tactics. Why have a squad built were you can open and shut doors and take pod shots at anyone you wnat cause that is what i am getting here from you. I mean yes killing all of the opponets pieces is the best for both players you play for the greater majority of the time and exhaust all your peices. But when a squad is looking down a no win situation and finds a weakness in the build to get through there shouldnt be a problem youve taken a no win situation and made it into a win. in the game there was chances for wes to kill han. instead of moving Momaw down the hall he could have moved cad to an angle or taken corran and ran him down my throat. i gave him the opportunity to take what is his but that was his choice just like mine to do a lock out win. why take away the choice in how a person wants to win really. like you said 90% of the time it doesnt happen however kokomo was that 10% what is there an issue with. |
|
| Author: | ultrastar [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I can't believe such a big deal has been made about this. Players go to Regionals to win. Tim did just that. If his loss helped him accomplish this goal then I call that great strategy. If I was in his position and knew that if I lost I would knock out someone who had a squad that could beat me, you better bet that I would throw the game. That's not bad sportsmanship, it's just good gaming. Tim congrats on the win. |
|
| Author: | sthlrd2 [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Lockout victories: I'm kind of torn on this issue, I think it's a valid stratagy but I do want some attacking going on. One specific match that I was furious about before the 3/2 scoring system. I'm playing vong my opponent playing rebels (bad matchup already) he had that 7 pnt leia that is a diplomat and obi ghost. He walked them into gambit and locked the entire rest of his team in his starting area. Every now and then he would shoot at someone with leia knowing I wasn't going to take damage most likely due to crab armor. Absolutly nothing I could do and I sat there for an hour not speaking as I would have yelled with lots of profanity if I opened my mouth. After the game, I dropped from the tourny as I didn't feel like playing after that. It put a real sour taste in my mouth about lockouts but if you are opening a door, then shooting then closing every round, that makes more sence and is more respectable than what I had to go through. I felt I needed to share that story on the topic of lockout victories. |
|
| Author: | hinkbert [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
As a returning player (who's grateful he didn't have to deal with any door shenannigans since Champions of the Force) I think if there are any changes to be made they should be done in a way to induce players to want to play their best and engage. I think in terms of doors the Vset designers have done an excellent job in making a lookout far less viable, but they were able to do so by changing pieces and creating new abilities. If standings manipulation becomes an issue, alter the rules so people aren't motivated to manipulate rankings. Punishing someone for a choice, even if some consider it unethical, that isn't explicitly wrong won't ultimately help the game. If players should always be expected to do their best and get the highest point win the game should be designed in such a way that that is always the best option. That's my $.02. |
|
| Author: | dnemiller [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
ultrastar wrote: I can't believe such a big deal has been made about this. Players go to Regionals to win. Tim did just that. If his loss helped him accomplish this goal then I call that great strategy. If I was in his position and knew that if I lost I would knock out someone who had a squad that could beat me, you better bet that I would throw the game. That's not bad sportsmanship, it's just good gaming. Tim congrats on the win. His actions effected other players by not playing to win. The fifth place player was not given a chance to be in the top four because of a intentional loss. The player could not play into the top four by using his strategy or tactics because another player intentionally changed the outcome to give himself a favorable match-up. I guess I am missing your line of reasoning. If you come to a venue to play and be the best generally the term "intentional loss" is not part of the equation. I think if you check the old penalty guidelines I used to hand out to judges at gencon you will find that there was a penalty for this kind of action. It was not listed specifically in the floor rules because the Star Wars Floor Rules were specific to the game itself. The penalty guidelines that I had made up (and I believe Les made a nicer version for me) were for judges to use. I can probably find my old set but the issue of actions that effect the outcome of tournament were part of that. As I remember off hand the penalty was a DQ and even the possiblity of being banned from competitive play. It was pretty much the standing DCI rules for tournament play. I never really thought something like that would come up. |
|
| Author: | jhc36 [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Personally I have no issue with the way Tim won the regional. If throwing that game at the end of round 5 gave him a better shot at accomplishing a victory...then by all means go for it. He earned it by the way. He was number one at that point anyways. If we are all upset at the injustice of the 5th place dude not making top 4 because of Tim's actions, then I would suggest that the 5th place guy should have played better and not have his outcome dictated by other games. Well played Tim. As for the lockout issue, I side with Graham. |
|
| Author: | audrisampson [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Let me start by saying I HATE lockout. The night before the regional Sven did it to me and all I wanted to do is pop him one in the jaw. However it is really stupid to expect a player do more then what is necessary to win to fufill some "Spirit of the game" requirement so the opponent can feel warm and fuzzy inside. Heck a total lockout is far merciful then having to run your figs around locked doors as your opponent shoots you to shreds then locks the door. In what other game do you have "play around" a win to fufill a requirement to win. The closest thing to a lockout in minis is the check mate in chess. You don't have to move your pieces to uncheck mate your opponent over and over just so you can kill his other pieces. If you don't want to be locked out then don't let all your uggies and override pieces get killed. Its as simple as that. If you do let all thoses pieces get killed, Guess what.. you deserve to lose the game by lockout.. |
|
| Author: | Echo [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Re: stalling and lockout victories. From the floor rules: Quote: Games are meant to be played to completion (reach victory conditions) within the time limit. Ending the game due to 5 rounds of non-engagement is NOT a victory condition. Winning because you're up on points is NOT a victory condition; it's a tiebreaker. If you are playing in a manner to intentionally and flagrantly not reach the victory conditions within the time limit, you are breaking this rule. I'm a big proponent of winning in any way you can as long as it's within the rules, but this is very explicitly against the rules. Intentionally losing isn't, but intentionally failing to reach the victory conditions within the time limit is. Winning by killing all of your opponent's door control and then locking them out in order to force them to split their forces and walk into a trap is fine. Doing it in order to outactivate and then open the doors, open fire, and close the doors is fine. If you kill all your opponent's door control and they refuse to try to get around your locked doors, instead expecting you to open the doors and enter their death trap, your opponent is failing to engage and you need to call a judge over. Absolutely preventing engagement though such that they don't even have the option to engage, though, means you have no intent to complete the game within the time limit and you are stalling. |
|
| Author: | audrisampson [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
To follow your quote from the rules. A game can be completed to victory during the lockout situation. The Gambit rule facilitates this. Assuming you get a lockout fairly early in the game you can easily make the pts for a 200pt win by just sitting in gambit and both players spinning figs because there are no other options due to the lockout. If the gambit rule did not exist then yes I would agree with your interpetation of the rules. In this case however you are advancing the game just at a slower pace then the killing of figs. |
|
| Author: | Echo [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
audrisampson wrote: To follow your quote from the rules. A game can be completed to victory during the lockout situation. The Gambit rule facilitates this. Assuming you get a lockout fairly early in the game you can easily make the pts for a 200pt win by just sitting in gambit and both players spinning figs because there are no other options due to the lockout. If the gambit rule did not exist then yes I would agree with your interpetation of the rules. In this case however you are advancing the game just at a slower pace then the killing of figs. Only if the 5 rounds of no engagement doesn't happen. If "no side takes damage, makes an attack roll, or makes a saving throw for 5 complete rounds", the game ends early. If you're playing specifically to end the game this way, it is impossible to get 200 points unless you've already gotten at least 175 points (in which case, I'm totally fine with you locking out your opponent's last 25 points worth of dudes). If you open the door every 4th round, take a shot, then close the door again and keep collecting gambit, that's totally fine! You'll eventually hit 200 points, and aren't intentionally and flagrantly trying not to. Heck, if you use Dr. Evazan to have GOWK keep rolling saves every round and keep your opponent locked out, that's pretty lame but is technically not against the rule if you're playing at a speed that you'll actually get 40 rounds of Gambit within the hour (that's the other part, you have to play at a speed to do so, so if you aren't playing fast enough to get those 40 rounds of Gambit then you are still stalling). In the situation that's being discussed, the game ended after 5 rounds of non-engagement, and neither player had reached the victory condition, and the winner actually intentionally avoided the victory condition so he could win on a tiebreaker. This is against the rules and stalling as far as I understand it. |
|
| Author: | RaginRancor [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I was locked in a room at NY regional, my own damn fault! My opponent out activated me opened door shot me.He tried to kill mt locked up figs so he could gain a 3pt win. the danger of lock down is why they say "override, don't leave home without it"
|
|
| Author: | sthlrd2 [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Echo wrote: Re: stalling and lockout victories. From the floor rules: Quote: Games are meant to be played to completion (reach victory conditions) within the time limit. Ending the game due to 5 rounds of non-engagement is NOT a victory condition. Winning because you're up on points is NOT a victory condition; it's a tiebreaker. If you are playing in a manner to intentionally and flagrantly not reach the victory conditions within the time limit, you are breaking this rule. I'm a big proponent of winning in any way you can as long as it's within the rules, but this is very explicitly against the rules. Intentionally losing isn't, but intentionally failing to reach the victory conditions within the time limit is. Winning by killing all of your opponent's door control and then locking them out in order to force them to split their forces and walk into a trap is fine. Doing it in order to outactivate and then open the doors, open fire, and close the doors is fine. If you kill all your opponent's door control and they refuse to try to get around your locked doors, instead expecting you to open the doors and enter their death trap, your opponent is failing to engage and you need to call a judge over. Absolutely preventing engagement though such that they don't even have the option to engage, though, means you have no intent to complete the game within the time limit and you are stalling. The problem that I have with this is in a specific game last year. I had a squad with about 18 activations and had just about all of them (except for a select few) in the center of the map and even further into my oppontents side (to open doors.) While my oppontent never engaged me at all. I was opening every door (even doors on his side of the map to encourage combat.) But I wasn't about to just run into his small corrider (where my numbers count for nothing) (think 300) I would have been decimated. He actually called a judge over for me stalling. The judge gave him a slow play warning for not engaging and gave me a warning for the exact reason you mentioned above (of not trying to get a full victory). If I am advancing and in gambit and not locking any doors. I don't believe I should be forced to run full speed ahead into his death trap of non engaging figs. I understand go for 3pnt wins but that isn't always possible due to others stalling and somehow I still get a stalling call. |
|
| Page 3 of 5 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|