|
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS |
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
should be against the rules | 14 | 3% |  |
|---|
fine with me | 248 | 54% | |
|---|
should be against competition rules | 19 | 4% | |
|---|
it's historical | 172 | 37% | |
|---|
would never play him again | 7 | 2% | |
|---|
| POLL DESCRIPTION |
What do you think of a player who "refuses to fight" and makes his opponent attack?
For instance, in some rules a player might deploy defensive terrain (i.e., a river that shields one corner of the playing field) and "hide" behind it, waiting for his opponent to attack. |
should be against the rules | Any rules which allow a player with a strictly passive strategy to win should be revised to fix the flaw.
|
|---|
fine with me | I have no problem with players who use a passive strategy. That's part of the game.
|
|---|
should be against competition rules | Competition rules should penalize players with passive strategies.
|
|---|
it's historical | Some armies are only suited for the defensive. Therefore, passive strategy should be an option in historical gaming.
|
|---|
would never play him again | I refuse to play gamers who use a passive strategy. Gaming should be about battles, not the avoidance of battle.
|
|---|
|
