I recently finished running a tournament and wanted to see some input from other X-Wing players with an impartial point of view on what exactly constitutes stalling or slow play and how they might deal with potentially problem players.

I certainly understand that the final rounds of a tournament can be stressful and mentally taxing, especially when one is behind in points, but routinely taking 10-15 minutes for a single ship's planning and a further 5-10 for it's activation is excessive. Incidentally that's not an exaggeration. I timed it. One of his earlier opponents in the finals conceded due to frustration. I suspected that was part of his game plan, frustrating his opponents into sloppy play with evasive flying and slow playing.

My players were understandably very upset, but I was reluctant to disqualify someone from the later rounds of a competitive level event for something that could be chalked up to extremely (insanely?) cautious play. The players were obviously very upset for having to wait on the game, especially his opponent, so it was difficult to get an impartial opinion on how to handle potential slow-play in the future. I gave the player 2 verbal warnings and stayed at the table to referee, coaxing the player to take less time with his decisions. Still he tested the limits, only dipping into firing range every few rounds. He did win, and I don't question his game-plan of not trading shots unless unavoidable, just the time he took with his turns in addition to it.

My question is this, should I have disqualified him? What should I have done differently to keep the situation from arising? Grand Finals are currently un-timed in X-Wing events. Are the rules for player conduct clear enough? If there is money and prizes on the line, the potential for drama late in a tournament is very high, I think it would be helpful to have more tools as a TO in the form of guidelines to make calls on stalling/slow-play. As I remember there was also some stalling drama at Worlds last year. Clearly this is a problem that should probably be addressed.

I think 15-25 minutes for a single ship is excessive and warrants a DQ. I wouldn't of given him a 2nd warning myself, 1 would of been enough and if he continued to play that slowly he should of taken the loss.

The fact that it's in a final round makes it even more important IMO to make people play fairly.

I'd say a verbal warning, specifying that if it happens again a DQ is likely, should fix the issue.

Where do you draw the line though?

I do see the point in taking a while to do the planning (especially when flying Intys with PTL or Phantoms, especially Echo) but I don't see why it'll take long for activation --- he's already planned and locked down what he is supposed to do, why take 5-10 minutes just deciding on an action?

Where do you draw the line though?

That's the trick... it's also why FFG doesn't say, because it's something that needs to be left up to the TO to judge.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say no more than 5 minutes per ship, for both setting the dial and activating the ships.

If one player complains, it's worth taking note and observing just to see if it's a valid complaint. If more than one player complains, clearly it's an issue. I don't believe it's that hard to plan for one ship and it's ensuing actions, nor should it long to go through it's activation. I think this player was running the clock by any means he could. I wouldn't have bothered with a second verbal warning. I would have given him a five minute time limit to plan or be disqualified. You've got to emphasize the consequence or it will get ignored. Geez, I'm harsh!

Yeah, fair enough. Even flying Echo, I sure don't take 5 minutes to plan her move! I know because I play with my phone on timer.

Where do you draw the line though?

This was my point in posting this here. It would be nice if FFG would offer some guidelines, even if vague ('about five minutes per ship'.) If not to help TOs make that call, then to give them something to point to, to reduce the drama of disqualifying someone. When you make a call to DQ it can be easily seen as arbitrary or unfair. More precisely worded rules make you seem more justified to the players, particularly the one you are ejecting or warning, meaning less chance of there being drama.

That is a good idea about stating potential consequences, I had thought they were implied if the TO is making a point of warning a player, though. In this particular situation his opponent in the Grand Final game never complained, which is another reason I wasn't quick to DQ him, nor had any of his games up until finals gone to time.

After a first warning the second should have been enough for a DQ. The possible exception here is if he has noticeably sped up his play although it still should be faster although in this case his original play stalling could possibly merit DQ then without the warning.

Where do you draw the line though?

I do see the point in taking a while to do the planning (especially when flying Intys with PTL or Phantoms, especially Echo) but I don't see why it'll take long for activation --- he's already planned and locked down what he is supposed to do, why take 5-10 minutes just deciding on an action?

Call me a cynic but when it takes a player longer to decide what to do that it would take to just throw the templates on the table and measure he's probably taking too long. My take on the anti-measuring rules is that they are there to speed up play so it should be obvious that if someone is taking longer than it would to measure there is probably an issue.

If one is allowed to take their time planning then that tells me they should already be accounting for what their opponent may do so the Activation phase shouldn't take all that long as it should already have been foreseen. Now if something really crazy happens, although I don't know what that could be, then activations could take a little longer but the choice should still come quickly. Someone playing a ship without relocation options really shouldn't waste too much time picking actions.

I would say the no premeasuring rules are there to reward spatial awareness. In fairness he was running an outrider with engine upgrade. He had a lot of options to think about, but not enough to excuse that amount of time dedicated to planning.

He sped up after his first warning and again after his second. He avoided a DQ by going at the very limit of what I would deem acceptable, but he was still flying very evasively.

I think the best guideline isn't a hard and fast rule ("Players should take fewer than five minutes"), but rather when you see one player taking substantially longer than the other player. If I'm planning movements for three or four ships in the time it takes my opponent to figure out one dial, then in my opinion that's evidence that my opponent is either deliberately stalling or needs to improve his or her skill level substantially before entering another tournament.

I can't imagine a reason to take five minutes in the activation phase, though. There just aren't that many decisions to be made. On that basis, I probably would have DQ'ed instead of issuing a second warning.

Warning -> DQ seems harsh for slow play.

Something like 1st Warning -> Game Loss -> DQ would give the slow player a chance to realise that the TO is serious about it.

Magic the Gathering has a graduated penalty system for slow play.

Warning -> DQ seems harsh for slow play.

Something like 1st Warning -> Game Loss -> DQ would give the slow player a chance to realise that the TO is serious about it.

Magic the Gathering has a graduated penalty system for slow play.

Of course in this case it was a Grand Final match, so really game loss was the same as a DQ in essence. That was my feeling, as well that one warning to DQ was too harsh.

DQing might be harsh, but when other players are following the general guidelines it is they that are being punished. How many of the players were taking anywhere near his time, none I am guessing. I have never seen anyone take that long. Warnings are good, but if the player is not penalized than there is no incentive for him to speed up. If you don't want to disqualify him then first warn the player, if that does not work deduct points that might take a win away or reduce the level of the players win. Then if it continues DQ him. Unfortunately that has to be as option. Making that decision is being part of a GM or TO

I would say the no premeasuring rules are there to reward spatial awareness. In fairness he was running an outrider with engine upgrade. He had a lot of options to think about, but not enough to excuse that amount of time dedicated to planning.

He sped up after his first warning and again after his second. He avoided a DQ by going at the very limit of what I would deem acceptable, but he was still flying very evasively.

Flying evasively is not "slow play" in and of itself and should not be grounds for a DQ. For the model of how to handle that, I think Alex Davy's response as judge in the Top 16 World's Game, where a player fortressed was to talk with the player and, as I understand it, make sure he had "a plan" that would move the game forward.

Otherwise, it sounds like he (the player in the OP) complied once warned about the actual "slow play."

If we're trying to come up with some guidelines, I propose 3 minutes for the Planning phase unless both players agree to extend it (to a maximum of 5 minutes), and 15 seconds to choose actions when the opportunity arises. If a player who's supposed to be making a decision is instead looking at the clock to squeeze as much time out of it as possible, that's a verbal warning, followed by match loss (full win for their opponent), followed by disqualification. For obvious and abusive stalling, jump right from verbal warning to DQ.

Personally, I find the act of stalling and trying to run the clock out to be quite poor form. I appreciate that running away from the enemy for numerous rounds is a vaild and legal strategy and don't have a major problem with that. But to spend 10-15 minutes planning for one ship is without a doubt stalling for time. At later stages of a game, with fewer ships on the board, by the time one player has one left, it just shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to figure out the best place to be.

Example: Player 1 is behind and to the left of my sole surviving ship. So I'm thinking I'm not going to be in a position for a shot and if I do a left or right turn-2, he's got me dead in his sights. If I left-turn-3 and barrel roll either way, he could still run straight and have me in range. If I try to make a straight-4 and boost, and he runs straight, he might have me at range 3. If I k-turn, we'll go head-to-head and I can't one-shot him without possibly being one-shot myself. If I right-turn-3 and barrel roll, I should clear the asteroid but leave it between us and leave him possibly without a shot. Sold, I'll do the right turn and roll. I won't get a shot this round but neither will he.

The time it takes to read that, is the time it should take to plan, and I've mentally explored six options there. How long was that?

Gaming the clock has been in the game since the release of the Falcon, I am sadly used to it.

If I was the TO I'd set a hard limit akin to 10 mins, per Activation Phase, that obviously includes both players.

I'd just like to bring up the fact that this was a Grand Final match. There was no time limit and he was behind in points. He had no motivation to stall 'for time.' Meanwhile he did have reason to be very critical and deliberate in his movement... Which is another reason for my hesitation in disqualification, and was under the impression prior to the first warning that 'there is no stalling in a game without a time limit.' (Paraphrasing) It seemed more likely that he was suffering severe analysis paralysis or was trying to frustrate his opponent, but it was very difficult to discern which.

However, intentional or not, his slow play was detracting from the experience and performance of his opponent.

I understand that disqualification is the job of the TO, but in a situation where motivations are uncertain I find it a difficult call to hand out, especially in Grand Finals.

I'm not asking for a hard time limit either, FFG should even stress that it's the job of the TO to determine what the situation is at the table and account for it when making any decision to disqualify tournament participants. However, some indication of where to consider drawing the line would be nice. For the slower players among us, 5 or even 10 minutes may seem totally reasonable. This is why it helps to have a guideline even if not a hard limit.

I also think that Grand Finals matches should be timed. Perhaps given an extra 30-45 minutes over normal rounds, but a time limit encourages aggressive, exciting play, makes player motivations clear for the sake of calls like this and adds urgency to the players' timing. Also it would let a poor T.O. get home before midnight.

However, intentional or not, his slow play was detracting from the experience and performance of his opponent.

This is the issue IMO. Sure time isn't an issue, but you can still use stalling as a tactic. If I play slowly enough the other guy may get bored, and get in such a rush that he makes mistakes, letting me pull out the win.

I understand that disqualification is the job of the TO, but in a situation where motivations are un

For the slower players among us, 5 or even 10 minutes may seem totally reasonable. This is why it helps to have a guideline even if not a hard limit.

I think 5 minutes is plenty of time even for a slower player. But as was said in the OP we're talking about 15-25 minutes.

I can see the problem it is for a TO. I guess one way to handle it is before the tournament starts is to lay out the specific guidelines you will be following concerning time limits and such, and decide before hand whether the final will be timed or not. Sometimes reminding everyone at the beginning about stalling and that you will be watching will eliminate the potential problem.

This is the issue IMO. Sure time isn't an issue, but you can still use stalling as a tactic. If I play slowly enough the other guy may get bored, and get in such a rush that he makes mistakes, letting me pull out the win.

Absolutely. That is the issue here. But then shouldn't extremely evasive flying be governed by the same rules?

As I said, he did speed up, but was he still going too slow? Was he still stalling? After the second warning he was taking around 5 minutes planning, 5 minutes for two actions, which is more reasonable, but IMO really skirting the limits of what is acceptable.

I'm not defending the player, only my decision as a TO to not disqualify. Really I was starting this thread to get a consensus on what people feel slow-play is and where the lines of player conduct should be drawn. In many cases the sportsmanship rules are very clear, verbally abusing your opponent, measuring when you shouldn't, surreptitiously leaving templates on the board and staring at them while you plot your moves and I've warned and disqualified players for similar things (though in other games.)

This isn't a problem I've had before at an X-Wing tournament, and it's difficult without a frame of reference. The slow play rules are pretty nebulous. I've played with the player in question (and his opponent) on numerous occasions and in each the player in question has played very, very slowly. Playing more slowly than normal in a late tournament round seems very reasonable, which is why I have to question motivation.

What a soft time limit from FFG does is allows me as a TO to leave motivation out of the equation. As it is now, it is legal to play slowly as long as you're not doing so intentionally... but even if you're not intentionally stalling, then you're still hindering your opponent and the tournament organizer (If you're taking as long as he was.) However taking the same amount of time intentionally is DQ-able. This means I have no rule I can point to other than, "I think you're doing this intentionally." I am usually good at reading people and he seemed genuinely apologetic after both warnings and attempted to speed his play both times. So, by the word of the rules, if it wasn't intentional, I was right not to DQ him, even though I felt like I should because of the effect it had on his opponent. See the problem?

This is the issue IMO. Sure time isn't an issue, but you can still use stalling as a tactic. If I play slowly enough the other guy may get bored, and get in such a rush that he makes mistakes, letting me pull out the win.

Absolutely. That is the issue here. But then shouldn't extremely evasive flying be governed by the same rules?

Not necessarily, because the difference between extreme evasive flying and not putting your dials down is that in one an opponent has a chance to choose maneuvers that will get his or her opponent in arc for shots and in the other nothing is happening and there's nothing he or she can do about it...at all.

Frustrating your opponent with in-game strategy should be perfectly acceptable. However, frustrating him or her by testing/exploiting the limits of the games "procedures," intentional or not, is a different story.

This is the issue IMO. Sure time isn't an issue, but you can still use stalling as a tactic. If I play slowly enough the other guy may get bored, and get in such a rush that he makes mistakes, letting me pull out the win.

Absolutely. That is the issue here. But then shouldn't extremely evasive flying be governed by the same rules?

Not necessarily, because the difference between extreme evasive flying and not putting your dials down is that in one an opponent has a chance to choose maneuvers that will get his or her opponent in arc for shots and in the other nothing is happening and there's nothing he or she can do about it...at all.

Frustrating your opponent with in-game strategy should be perfectly acceptable. However, frustrating him or her by testing/exploiting the limits of the games "procedures," intentional or not, is a different story.

I think that isn't a difficult distinction at all. In one case you are not playing, but in fact expressly not playing, in the other you are playing but just making the opponent's job hard.

This is the issue IMO. Sure time isn't an issue, but you can still use stalling as a tactic. If I play slowly enough the other guy may get bored, and get in such a rush that he makes mistakes, letting me pull out the win.

Absolutely. That is the issue here. But then shouldn't extremely evasive flying be governed by the same rules?

Not necessarily, because the difference between extreme evasive flying and not putting your dials down is that in one an opponent has a chance to choose maneuvers that will get his or her opponent in arc for shots and in the other nothing is happening and there's nothing he or she can do about it...at all.

Frustrating your opponent with in-game strategy should be perfectly acceptable. However, frustrating him or her by testing/exploiting the limits of the games "procedures," intentional or not, is a different story.

I think that isn't a difficult distinction at all. In one case you are not playing, but in fact expressly not playing, in the other you are playing but just making the opponent's job hard.

Right, and the whole game is about choosing tactics to force the latter.