Can someone explain why or in what scenarios "stalling" is now seen as anti fair play ?
The way it is written - "unfair stalling tactics" suggests there is also "fair stalling tactics" ?
It is described thus - "delay winning by accumulating troops to force their opponent to quit". Don't we naturally 'delay' winning by accumulating troops - I may think attacking an opponent with 6 troops when I have 9 troops is not a good move so wait (i.e. delay) until the next round (when I may have cards to trade) to then attack ?
I have no doubt there are good reasons to introduce a rule but it seems ill-defined so players could genuinely break rules without realising it ?
Also the idea that stalling, and no other reason, might be why players quit is laughable - I'm sure we have all encountered players who have quit when we we did not think they were out of any chance of winning. And what about those players that quit as soon as the auto placement is revealed ?
Anyway - I'm guessing I'm thinking of a possible scenario where I have "trapped" an opponent in Australia (although I would argue that is not always the best strategic move with only one way out but that's their choice) - let's say I have 20 troops and they have 10. To me they have a decision, when they get their next troop allocation, to attack my 20 troops with their 15 troops - if they decide not to (and therefore not gaining a card) and I then use my next allocation to attack another opponent and bring 10 troops back to Siam they again have a choice to attack my 30 troops with their 20 troops. Having worked hard to get into this strategic position and also fighting off opponents I'm struggling to see why this is unfair situation when they have backed themselves into a corner and decide not to attack and quit as a result ?
It seems that any pincer movement or situation where you mass troops against a smaller opponent but not attacking them immediately is stallling shoudl they choose to quit?
I'm bemused so any help would be appreciated