There are two classes of slow-playing that I've seen.

1) The deliberate slow-play. This is the case where a guy takes a minute to roll dice despite having only one legal target. You usually know it when you see it.

2) The "accidental" slow-play. This is where the player takes forever to set up moves largely due to indecision. There's one player who developed a very bad reputation for slow-playing (taking forever to plan moves despite only flying a two-ship list). But, having watched his games, I don't think he was deliberately trying to slow the game down. He wasn't avoiding combat. Indeed, in a Dash vs Chewie battle, he repeatedly would barrel-roll his Dash to get a shot at Fat Chewie, even though he was winning on points and had nothing to gain beyond keeping the combat going.

#1 is a problem, but #2 is common enough when players start to try to out-think their opponents. They'll set their dials down, then realize a counter-move, then change their dials, then realize their change was stupid, then change it back, then realize they forgot to account for potential blocks and change it again. I don't know a player who hasn't done that.

You also have some players under the impression that playing defensively is also slow play. As the op mentioned he was accused of slow play by simply keeping to the edge which IMHO is incorrect use of the term.

Slow play is not playing. It is taking long time to set dial roll dice or deal damage or take actions.

Defensive playing is moving out of range keeping away from enemies, delaying engagements for a few turns. Forcing them into positions that if they engaged they will be at a disadvantage. However that is playing the game. Sure they are not getting into blaster range as fast but that is still playing the game.

People need to get it into their heads what actually is "Slow Play"

I don't have any brilliant answers here, but I do have a different perspective.

Rather than trying to force players to play a particular way, we should be incentivising players to play and to finish the games they are playing.

MoV is great and all, but it only really matters when it comes to tie breakers. Playing 5 games and winning all 5 games by 12 points is much better than smashing 3 players 100-0 and losing 2 games by 20 points each.

I won't presume that these numbers are anything other that just pulled out of the air, but if, for example your tournament score was

0 - for a loss

1 - for a modified win

2 - for a full win

plus

1 - for every full 25 points of your opponents squad you destroyed.

You're creating a situation where getting stuck in and destroying your opponents ships is still worth the risk of 'losing' for your overall tournament score.

Killing 1 TIE fighter and flying away for the rest of the game nets you 2 points, but if you lose while killing your opponents Fat Han, you still score 2 points. The slowplay becomes less of an issue.

Create the system that encourages the play you want.

Don't create a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to force the play you want.

I don't have any brilliant answers here, but I do have a different perspective.

Rather than trying to force players to play a particular way, we should be incentivising players to play and to finish the games they are playing.

MoV is great and all, but it only really matters when it comes to tie breakers. Playing 5 games and winning all 5 games by 12 points is much better than smashing 3 players 100-0 and losing 2 games by 20 points each.

I won't presume that these numbers are anything other that just pulled out of the air, but if, for example your tournament score was

0 - for a loss

1 - for a modified win

2 - for a full win

plus

1 - for every full 25 points of your opponents squad you destroyed.

You're creating a situation where getting stuck in and destroying your opponents ships is still worth the risk of 'losing' for your overall tournament score.

Killing 1 TIE fighter and flying away for the rest of the game nets you 2 points, but if you lose while killing your opponents Fat Han, you still score 2 points. The slowplay becomes less of an issue.

Create the system that encourages the play you want.

Don't create a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to force the play you want.

This ^ This^ and once again This^ especially that last paragraph

If the sometimes heated and often protracted discussions about what constitutes slow play and how you deal with it are anything to go by, it's basically impossible to create clear workable rules that penalise and/or prevent slow play.

The only option therefore is to reward and incentivise fast aggressive play.

I think you are overestimating the competency of human beings to do simple arithmetic. At GenCon last year during the first day 1, between each round they would post pairings. Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything. So, we'd all wait another 5-10 minutes for the pairings to be posted again. This happened between almost every round. This was at the National Championship, with FFG running the tournament, with multiple judges and TOs, and players that all understood the scoring rules. And this was with the current simple system of just adding up the points destroyed on the ships actually destroyed.

Any partial points system is going to require a division problem to get the per hit point cost, and then a multiplication problem to get the points killed score, and then a subtraction problem to get the points left. Let's take a 60 point Han Solo with 13 hull points. So, each hit point of Han is 60/13 = 4.615384615384615 points. Now let's say Han survives with 9 HP remaining. So that means we need to take 13-9 = 4 HP destroyed. 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV? Because that's 18.46 points destroyed, but there was 60-18.46 = 41.54 points left on the board. So does that mean we round up or down to 41 or 42 points. Oh, and we need to do that exercise with each ship that is remaining on the board for both players.

So now at the end of the game, we need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet. Even with a calculator and a worksheet there will be errors all over the place. People will make incorrect rounding mistakes, incorrectly divide or multiply things out. They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different. And let's do this for each table each round. So now the TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event. At a 64 man regional with 5 rounds, that's 64 score cards times 5, 320 times. If we are lucky and only 10% of the scorecards have errors, that's still 32 errors the TO has to track down and figure out. If we say it takes 3 minutes to track down the players in question and determine the error (which is best case), that's an extra 90 minutes of error checking just to "optimize" a tie breaker.

If we don't care about accurate scoring then by all means we should have the players do math problems when they are finished with the game. If we want accurate scoring, keep it simple. As simple as possible. Partial point scoring has so many bad unintended consequences. I'm not saying it's not a better potential system. What I'm saying is that the scoring isn't done by a computer, it's done by people. People make mistakes, lots of them. We can't be trusted to correctly keep track of partial points.

Again, you are either intentionally making it sound worse than it would be or you aren't thinking about it. While no one who is suggesting that partial points would be perfect is being honest, you are making up issues.

1) Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything.

It seems like that problem is more to do with the players than the scoring system (as it already exists), but a simple scoring table would prevent all but the dullest of players from making that mistake. You can use your imagination to come up with a number of variations that would be small, simple, and effective.

2) 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV?

Just like the vast, vast majority of people would intuitively respond to that question, I will say that anything less than half gets rounded down and anything more than half gets rounded up. Simple and intuitive with absolutely no potential for confusion.

3) People will make incorrect rounding mistakes

Impossible. It is either x.5xxx or higher or it is x.4xxxx or lower - there is no room for rounding mistakes under a partial points scheme unless one of the players does not know how to count to ten.

4) TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event.

Come on. Just like TOs do not check damage decks, they will not check these. The best proof reader is someone with an incentive. In this case, each player's current opponent.

5) They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different.

How? Do people not calculate the final score together? That seems like a policy error. Two people working together will not turn in sheets with different numbers. The player and their opponent are responsible for accurate scoring. If that is a real issue, then a policy to dock their score by 50% for that match if it is discovered should seriously decrease that problem.

6) [W]e need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet.

Calculator a/k/a cell phone. Most tournaments provide a sheet of paper for score keeping. Now, it will just have to be a different sheet of paper. Not a huge deal.

Keep in mind that players use the same list throughout a tournament. They will, only once and before the event, have to divide the total cost of their ship by its total durability - which I have full confidence that someone in 5th grade could handle. Then, they write it down. Then, at the end of each match, if that ship is alive and damaged, they write the that ships remaining durability down next to the number the cost/durability and multiply - which someone in 4th grade could handle.

I don't know why you are so set on making it seem complicated. Partial points has other problems that you could use to argue against it. But harping on the perceived complexity of simple math is a waste of energy.

I think you are overestimating the competency of human beings to do simple arithmetic. At GenCon last year during the first day 1, between each round they would post pairings. Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything. So, we'd all wait another 5-10 minutes for the pairings to be posted again. This happened between almost every round. This was at the National Championship, with FFG running the tournament, with multiple judges and TOs, and players that all understood the scoring rules. And this was with the current simple system of just adding up the points destroyed on the ships actually destroyed.

Any partial points system is going to require a division problem to get the per hit point cost, and then a multiplication problem to get the points killed score, and then a subtraction problem to get the points left. Let's take a 60 point Han Solo with 13 hull points. So, each hit point of Han is 60/13 = 4.615384615384615 points. Now let's say Han survives with 9 HP remaining. So that means we need to take 13-9 = 4 HP destroyed. 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV? Because that's 18.46 points destroyed, but there was 60-18.46 = 41.54 points left on the board. So does that mean we round up or down to 41 or 42 points. Oh, and we need to do that exercise with each ship that is remaining on the board for both players.

So now at the end of the game, we need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet. Even with a calculator and a worksheet there will be errors all over the place. People will make incorrect rounding mistakes, incorrectly divide or multiply things out. They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different. And let's do this for each table each round. So now the TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event. At a 64 man regional with 5 rounds, that's 64 score cards times 5, 320 times. If we are lucky and only 10% of the scorecards have errors, that's still 32 errors the TO has to track down and figure out. If we say it takes 3 minutes to track down the players in question and determine the error (which is best case), that's an extra 90 minutes of error checking just to "optimize" a tie breaker.

If we don't care about accurate scoring then by all means we should have the players do math problems when they are finished with the game. If we want accurate scoring, keep it simple. As simple as possible. Partial point scoring has so many bad unintended consequences. I'm not saying it's not a better potential system. What I'm saying is that the scoring isn't done by a computer, it's done by people. People make mistakes, lots of them. We can't be trusted to correctly keep track of partial points.

Again, you are either intentionally making it sound worse than it would be or you aren't thinking about it. While no one who is suggesting that partial points would be perfect is being honest, you are making up issues.

1) Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything.

It seems like that problem is more to do with the players than the scoring system (as it already exists), but a simple scoring table would prevent all but the dullest of players from making that mistake. You can use your imagination to come up with a number of variations that would be small, simple, and effective.

2) 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV?

Just like the vast, vast majority of people would intuitively respond to that question, I will say that anything less than half gets rounded down and anything more than half gets rounded up. Simple and intuitive with absolutely no potential for confusion.

3) People will make incorrect rounding mistakes

Impossible. It is either x.5xxx or higher or it is x.4xxxx or lower - there is no room for rounding mistakes under a partial points scheme unless one of the players does not know how to count to ten.

4) TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event.

Come on. Just like TOs do not check damage decks, they will not check these. The best proof reader is someone with an incentive. In this case, each player's current opponent.

5) They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different.

How? Do people not calculate the final score together? That seems like a policy error. Two people working together will not turn in sheets with different numbers. The player and their opponent are responsible for accurate scoring. If that is a real issue, then a policy to dock their score by 50% for that match if it is discovered should seriously decrease that problem.

6) [W]e need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet.

Calculator a/k/a cell phone. Most tournaments provide a sheet of paper for score keeping. Now, it will just have to be a different sheet of paper. Not a huge deal.

Keep in mind that players use the same list throughout a tournament. They will, only once and before the event, have to divide the total cost of their ship by its total durability - which I have full confidence that someone in 5th grade could handle. Then, they write it down. Then, at the end of each match, if that ship is alive and damaged, they write the that ships remaining durability down next to the number the cost/durability and multiply - which someone in 4th grade could handle.

I don't know why you are so set on making it seem complicated. Partial points has other problems that you could use to argue against it. But harping on the perceived complexity of simple math is a waste of energy.

I really don't believe I'm intentionally making it sound worse than it actually is. I think the scenario I laid out it is a pretty accurate representation of how a partial points system would work.

Partial points may be a better system. It may be a more fair way score matches, but I'm pretty sure there are cases with partial points that are more unfair in a number of situations.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that as scoring systems become more complicated they become much more error prone. As you introduce complications you must also increase the checks and balances to ensure scoring is done accurately.

In the game right now, we must all be able to do basic addition and subtraction to correctly score our games. The math involved is very simple and straightforward, and yet players and TOs are still constantly making errors doing the simplest math. To implement partial points, we will now need to do division and rounding as well as addition and subtraction. I agree with you that the math involved in partial points is truly at an elementary school level. But, even though the math is still quite simple, it is much more complicated that simple addition and subtraction. Everyone that plays this game can do the math involved, but can we all do it correctly all of the time? No we can't. The closest everyday problem to the partial points calculation is calculating a tip for you server at the end of a meal. It's quite simple take 15% of the bill and add to your total. We usually manage to do that correctly, but we all screw that up and have to redo it far more than any of us would like to admit.

I'm arguing that implementing a partial points system is unfeasible. To offset the complications of it, a more robust system of checks will have to be implemented, and that's an labor for the TO. Complication is generally bad. Complication is only a good thing when it is an absolute requirement. Are high HP ships really such a problem that we need to significantly increase the complexity of the scoring system just to account for them. No way.

Back to the original topic about slow playing. Slow playing is like porn, you know it when you see it. If we attempt to legislate rules into the game to define it and prevent it, it will backfire. We will just introduce a totally legal way to slowplay. If we give each player a set amount of time to set their dials, say 2 minutes. Suddenly, the player that wants to slowplay will stare at his clock and wait until the last second to finish setting his dials. He may know his move immediately, but you'll have to stand there and watch him legally burn down as much time as he can. Whatever time limit we try to impose to speed up the game will suddenly become the bounds in which you are actually permitted to slowplay. It's really not feasible to legislate behavior though the rule book. If someone is determined to slowplay or cheat, they are going to find a way to do it. We don't need to give them a legal mechanism to do it. TO's can and should police players and be the judges. It's not perfect, but it is generally working. I've been playing the game for over a year, I've gone to mutliple SCs, Regionals, and Gencon. I've only really seen 1 act of gross slowplay.

All these posts arguing back and forth over the same old solutions. I've yet to see a single criticism of my suggestion of comparative timers, so I'll post it again.

Each player has a clock. When you think your opponent is taking too long, you hit their clock. If a player ever reaches X minutes more than their opponent, they lose or are otherwise penalized.

There could be addendums (each with their own pros and cons):

1) you could make it so you can only hit the timer during the planning phase. This makes it so people aren't hitting time at every little juncture, deals with slow play at its most frequent occurrence. However, it doesn't deal with slow play in other game phases, but it is a little more obvious when someone is nefariously slow playing those phases.

2) Alternately, the first 30 seconds is not counted each time you press the button. This discourages pressing it all the time to gain 5 seconds on your opponent. Using a lap timer, subtract 30s times the number of laps from their time. This discourages pressing the button a lot, as your opponent is likely to gain time on you if you try to abuse it. If you press it and they quickly wrap up in less than 30 seconds, they actually gain back a little time. Which accomplishes the goal of speeding them up and prevents you from being a time clock abuser.

Since nobody is arguing for the terribleness of this idea, I'm going to just assume it is the bees knees

I really haven't encountered the problem of slow play in my local league or store championship. Sometimes players, including myself, will take a long time in the planning phase on a difficult turn. If it is taking to long, the opponent will make a comment to me about taking a long time and needing to hurry up. That is enough to get things back on track.

If someone is intentionally slow playing so obviously like the OP says, I imagine calling the TO, etc. will send enough bad energy their way for them to stop. If they are discovered doing this in multiple games, the TO would certainly have good reasons for DQ them.

I much prefer the current scoring system to partial points. I haven't seen a partial points idea that I like. The whole point of ships like the B- or Y-wing is that they are tough as nails. They are put in the list to soak up damage, don't take points from me for them being tough! Also, I like the simplicity of the current rules. They aren't perfect, but I dont want them to change unless the new scoring system is proven better through extensive playtesting.

Partial scoring also means all players need to be very diligent with their shield tokens and damage cards. I know I easily lose count of damage cards when playing with Decimators and things, and always have to double check my cards.

OH I HAVE AN IDEA!!!

I think it would be feasible to implement a "Squad Score Sheet" that players fill out during the game. It would replace our current Tournament Score Sheet. It would have to list a copy of each ship's hull/shields, and there would need to be some sort of method to mark that a shield was removed or a damage card was assigned.

Because honestly, I don't want the burden of watching my opponent and making sure 1 or 2 damage cards doesn't disappear off a ship. This already occasionally happens, but it is much easier to look back and say, "hey, I'm pretty sure I've done enough damage to kill that ship", because we are all keeping track of low HP ships.

So someone who is all for the partial points system, please draft up a "Squad Scoring Sheet" and some of the arguments against the partial points system can be actively corrected!

The extra cost for whisper is her pilot training, her crew training, the system and the cloaking device. When you get damaged, you do not lose these things in game until the ship is destroyed. So why would a crew member lose 3/4ths its value because a ship took damage? Is the gunner 3/4ths stupid now and needs to be rehabilitate?

You really shouldn't use fluff as an argument for a scoring mechanic...

Why not!?! Fluff is a huge part of this game.

I really haven't encountered the problem of slow play in my local league or store championship. Sometimes players, including myself, will take a long time in the planning phase on a difficult turn. If it is taking to long, the opponent will make a comment to me about taking a long time and needing to hurry up. That is enough to get things back on track.

If someone is intentionally slow playing so obviously like the OP says, I imagine calling the TO, etc. will send enough bad energy their way for them to stop. If they are discovered doing this in multiple games, the TO would certainly have good reasons for DQ them.

I much prefer the current scoring system to partial points. I haven't seen a partial points idea that I like. The whole point of ships like the B- or Y-wing is that they are tough as nails. They are put in the list to soak up damage, don't take points from me for them being tough! Also, I like the simplicity of the current rules. They aren't perfect, but I dont want them to change unless the new scoring system is proven better through extensive playtesting.

I like this, especially the last paragraph. I don't think a major game change, that could affect game play and balance, should be implemented until lots and lots and lots of play testing is completed.

So players, if you are really interested in changing the game rules, play with these rules a bunch of times. Put in a clock, partially score a 60/75 minute game. Video tape the whole thing, or give honest, impartial criticism. Play with random people and ask that you play this way to test it out. Bring a friend to watch and give his input as an outside source.

Host a "Partial Scoring tournament " at your LGS, ask players to fill out a review of the system, rank it, and offer suggestions. I don't think calculating a "What COULD happen partial point winner" post tournament is correct. I think people need to be 100% aware that a new system is being used, and let them squad build and make in game decisions based around this, before we can understand how it does affect the game.

Heck, FFG could run a Summer/Fall kit where they test out the system, and offer a promo card to players who fill out a review sheet.

So.much. text.

There won't be a fix. Never. As long as there are people who will do anything to win.

The best thing you can do is settle it your self, either by talking to the guy and showing him the facts that he is playing rather slow, calling a TO ( even if that isn't a good option due to It's variable nature), or you fly better than your opponent and counter his stalling with a tactic of your own. Counter stall tactics will be different every time depending on the situation.

So many posts, But I feel like they are all empty. Just my opinion from reading all 5 pages at once Lol. No disrespect to those who posted.

I have not encountered intentional slow play, But I have seen unintentional slow play and understand What it is. I just remind them about time limit and just think of a way to beat that player no matter What through flying. If I lose to a slow player, It's my own fault.

I think you are overestimating the competency of human beings to do simple arithmetic. At GenCon last year during the first day 1, between each round they would post pairings. Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything. So, we'd all wait another 5-10 minutes for the pairings to be posted again. This happened between almost every round. This was at the National Championship, with FFG running the tournament, with multiple judges and TOs, and players that all understood the scoring rules. And this was with the current simple system of just adding up the points destroyed on the ships actually destroyed.

Any partial points system is going to require a division problem to get the per hit point cost, and then a multiplication problem to get the points killed score, and then a subtraction problem to get the points left. Let's take a 60 point Han Solo with 13 hull points. So, each hit point of Han is 60/13 = 4.615384615384615 points. Now let's say Han survives with 9 HP remaining. So that means we need to take 13-9 = 4 HP destroyed. 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV? Because that's 18.46 points destroyed, but there was 60-18.46 = 41.54 points left on the board. So does that mean we round up or down to 41 or 42 points. Oh, and we need to do that exercise with each ship that is remaining on the board for both players.

So now at the end of the game, we need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet. Even with a calculator and a worksheet there will be errors all over the place. People will make incorrect rounding mistakes, incorrectly divide or multiply things out. They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different. And let's do this for each table each round. So now the TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event. At a 64 man regional with 5 rounds, that's 64 score cards times 5, 320 times. If we are lucky and only 10% of the scorecards have errors, that's still 32 errors the TO has to track down and figure out. If we say it takes 3 minutes to track down the players in question and determine the error (which is best case), that's an extra 90 minutes of error checking just to "optimize" a tie breaker.

If we don't care about accurate scoring then by all means we should have the players do math problems when they are finished with the game. If we want accurate scoring, keep it simple. As simple as possible. Partial point scoring has so many bad unintended consequences. I'm not saying it's not a better potential system. What I'm saying is that the scoring isn't done by a computer, it's done by people. People make mistakes, lots of them. We can't be trusted to correctly keep track of partial points.

Again, you are either intentionally making it sound worse than it would be or you aren't thinking about it. While no one who is suggesting that partial points would be perfect is being honest, you are making up issues.

1) Only after they posted the pairings would they realize that someone had made a scoring mistake of some sort, pull the pairings down and recalculate everything.

It seems like that problem is more to do with the players than the scoring system (as it already exists), but a simple scoring table would prevent all but the dullest of players from making that mistake. You can use your imagination to come up with a number of variations that would be small, simple, and effective.

2) 4 HP times 4.615384615384615 = 18.46153846153846 points. Is that 18 or 19 points for MOV?

Just like the vast, vast majority of people would intuitively respond to that question, I will say that anything less than half gets rounded down and anything more than half gets rounded up. Simple and intuitive with absolutely no potential for confusion.

3) People will make incorrect rounding mistakes

Impossible. It is either x.5xxx or higher or it is x.4xxxx or lower - there is no room for rounding mistakes under a partial points scheme unless one of the players does not know how to count to ten.

4) TO has to check the math on the scorecards 100+ times at a large event.

Come on. Just like TOs do not check damage decks, they will not check these. The best proof reader is someone with an incentive. In this case, each player's current opponent.

5) They will forget to subtract from the original HP of the ship. The two scorecards turned it will be different.

How? Do people not calculate the final score together? That seems like a policy error. Two people working together will not turn in sheets with different numbers. The player and their opponent are responsible for accurate scoring. If that is a real issue, then a policy to dock their score by 50% for that match if it is discovered should seriously decrease that problem.

6) [W]e need each player to have a calculator and a worksheet.

Calculator a/k/a cell phone. Most tournaments provide a sheet of paper for score keeping. Now, it will just have to be a different sheet of paper. Not a huge deal.

Keep in mind that players use the same list throughout a tournament. They will, only once and before the event, have to divide the total cost of their ship by its total durability - which I have full confidence that someone in 5th grade could handle. Then, they write it down. Then, at the end of each match, if that ship is alive and damaged, they write the that ships remaining durability down next to the number the cost/durability and multiply - which someone in 4th grade could handle.

I don't know why you are so set on making it seem complicated. Partial points has other problems that you could use to argue against it. But harping on the perceived complexity of simple math is a waste of energy.

How about for individuals with learning disabilities? I've seen tons of comments on this topic referring to "any competent adult" or "5th grade math" and its coming across as an elitist attitude, as if you are lifting your nose to the idea that someone struggles with math. A lot of you would be shocked at how many adults failed to graduate high school simply because math gave them so much anxiety that they instead, chose to drop out.

There are people who can't build a squad in this game without using a squad builder because they don't feel comfortable doing the mental math. And guess what, a calculator does not make a person UNDERSTAND how to calculate partial points. End rant

If you really want partial scoring, you are going to have to accept that it can't be perfect in order to make it simple, and you have to deal with the issue it creates for low agility ships that make up for it by being high HP.

I've yet to see a solution that is simple, fair to low agility ships and that solves the problem.

I'm an engineer and I messed up the math at Gen Con the first time I did it. Not because the math was difficult or I did the math wrong, but because I did the wrong math. (I misunderstood how it was calculated. My math was right for whatever calculation I was doing, but it wasn't the formula for computing MOV.).

I have never seen intended slow play in my corner of the world. The only slow play I've seen is from slow players. They are usually new. They get better.

I think any sort of rules to address this is just a bad idea.

And guess what, a calculator does not make a person UNDERSTAND how to calculate partial points. End rant

This can't be said enough. See my post above about messing up my gen con MOV. You have to both know what math to do, and how to do it. The calculator only solves one of these problems.

So, bonus MoV for every minute left on the clock?

Partial scoring also means all players need to be very diligent with their shield tokens and damage cards. I know I easily lose count of damage cards when playing with Decimators and things, and always have to double check my cards.

OH I HAVE AN IDEA!!!

I think it would be feasible to implement a "Squad Score Sheet" that players fill out during the game. It would replace our current Tournament Score Sheet. It would have to list a copy of each ship's hull/shields, and there would need to be some sort of method to mark that a shield was removed or a damage card was assigned.

Because honestly, I don't want the burden of watching my opponent and making sure 1 or 2 damage cards doesn't disappear off a ship. This already occasionally happens, but it is much easier to look back and say, "hey, I'm pretty sure I've done enough damage to kill that ship", because we are all keeping track of low HP ships.

So someone who is all for the partial points system, please draft up a "Squad Scoring Sheet" and some of the arguments against the partial points system can be actively corrected!

I already made one, I will upload it later. I'll look at it again and make some tweaks. I still don't think it will be idiot proof without having software that just asks you how many HP each ship has left at the end of each round (and has all the squads at the start of the tournament), but it is feasible to do it manually.

Or just before they lose half their HP? (Depending on the partial point system). The same problem exists, just at different point values.

Half-points does not fix the problem for exactly that reason, which is why, if you're going to do partial points, you need to go the entire way as above.

The more thresholds you have in the system--the more often you're awarded MoV for doing damage--the more closely the final score will mirror the actual game state.

So it's not that adopting half-points wouldn't have an effect (it's still much better than the current approach), it's that half-points doesn't do as good a job as proportional points. However, half-points is much easier to calculate on the fly than proportional points (although still more difficult than the current system). Accordingly, someone looking for a compromise between rigor and ease of administration might find himself looking seriously at half-points.

1.) Players following the rules have to out themselves as, 'That Guy' and short of someone taking a sledgehammer to their ships they're not going to call a judge over. Some players also get rather angry when losing, I doubt they'd react kindly to being accused of cheating, and this further makes 'That Guy' look even more like 'That Guy'.

See, this is exactly why I am increasingly unable to tolerate Fly Casual, because the way it is applied by far too many people leads to situations where someone becomes the bad guy for following the rules of the game and the systems FFG have in place. That is complete garbage. The opponent needs to learn the rules of the game he's playing and stop sulking like a petulant child. If he insists on sulking, that's on him, not his opponent for correcting him and making sure the game is played properly.

As MJ implied upthread--nothing about Fly Casual says you have to tolerate poor sportsmanship or outright cheating on your opponent's part. From my point of view, the Fly Casual approach to slow play looks something like this:

1. "Hey, I've been keeping an eye on the clock and it seems like we could both be playing a little faster. Let's try to get this finished up before the end of the round!"
2. "I'm sorry, but would you mind speeding up?"
3. "I'm definitely getting worried about the clock. Hold on for a moment while I grab the TO."

That's a polite face-saving request, a polite but clear warning, and then a request for backup from the TO. That doesn't make me "That Guy", unless "That Guy" is the person who doesn't want to see 4-6 people have their day partially spoiled by someone who can't get their head in the game even after explicit requests to speed up.

Or just own a modern phone. FFG could even release an app for it.

(looks sadly at my Blackberry)

So you're the person who still uses a Blackberry! I've been wondering who that was.

Have yet to encounter intentional slow playing in an event and still am having a hard with a game needing to take more than 60 minutes. Quite the opposite in fact, as a player I speed up when 15 minutes is called and so far all my opponents have done so as well.

Played 3 games last night (at a local tournament, 60 minute rounds), none of the games I played went to time (the longest of the three was 45 minutes). With 20 players I counted 6 games total (out of three rounds) that went to time.

Partial points is an interesting idea...in our local meta the concept is as unnecessary as 75 minute rounds. In fact, perhaps 75 minutes is too much time and causes people to play a bit slowly due to having more time.

I also have never experienced intentional slow play, though that doesn't mean it isn't a problem in certain local metas.

All of this discussion (and debate!) has really made me thankful for the people I play with in Edmonton. We never have an issue with slow play, and even in 60 minute per round tournaments, very few games go to time. The ones that do are often games involving 8+ ships, which is to be expected.

Edit

I also have never experienced intentional slow play, though that doesn't mean it isn't a problem in certain local metas.

Excellent point.

Here's a free and easy to implement fix:

If you suspect that a player is purposely stalling (not just playing slow, or playing defensively) ask them politely if they could speed up. Then if that doesn't resolve that you can call the TO over so they can observe. It is what they are there for.

If they cannot officiate the game in that manner they should not be TOing events.

Create the system that encourages the play you want.

Don't create a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to force the play you want.

Somehow this got lost in the thread, and I am not sure why. If there is to be a solution to what is perceived as a problem, it will need to somehow encourage the type of aggressive play that folks seem to want. That's how Congress does it, after all: if they want people to behave a certain way, they incentivize it somehow (usually through tax breaks). Works like a charm.

You'll have to forgive me, because I'm new to the game: have full points always been awarded for a timed win? I find that to be a little unusual. To me, the simplest solution is not to give games that are called on time the same credit as games that finish before the clock runs out. If a game goes to time, you get a Modified Match Win (3 points). All that has to happen is FFG deletes a single sentence from the current tournament rules:

Create the system that encourages the play you want.

Don't create a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to force the play you want.

Somehow this got lost in the thread, and I am not sure why. If there is to be a solution to what is perceived as a problem, it will need to somehow encourage the type of aggressive play that folks seem to want. That's how Congress does it, after all: if they want people to behave a certain way, they incentivize it somehow (usually through tax breaks). Works like a charm.

You'll have to forgive me, because I'm new to the game: have full points always been awarded for a timed win? I find that to be a little unusual. To me, the simplest solution is not to give games that are called on time the same credit as games that finish before the clock runs out. If a game goes to time, you get a Modified Match Win (3 points). All that has to happen is FFG deletes a single sentence from the current tournament rules:

This, I could get behind. My only concern would be when there are a lot of ships on the board.

For those of you who are experienced swarm players: how feasible is it to finish a game within 75 minutes if it involves 2 swarms?

Create the system that encourages the play you want.

Don't create a whole bunch of arbitrary rules to force the play you want.

Somehow this got lost in the thread, and I am not sure why. If there is to be a solution to what is perceived as a problem, it will need to somehow encourage the type of aggressive play that folks seem to want. That's how Congress does it, after all: if they want people to behave a certain way, they incentivize it somehow (usually through tax breaks). Works like a charm.

You'll have to forgive me, because I'm new to the game: have full points always been awarded for a timed win? I find that to be a little unusual. To me, the simplest solution is not to give games that are called on time the same credit as games that finish before the clock runs out. If a game goes to time, you get a Modified Match Win (3 points). All that has to happen is FFG deletes a single sentence from the current tournament rules:

This, I could get behind. My only concern would be when there are a lot of ships on the board.

For those of you who are experienced swarm players: how feasible is it to finish a game within 75 minutes if it involves 2 swarms?

75 minutes is feasible, sure. However, that's usually when the swarm is winning. It is fighting AGAINST the Swarm and taking it out in time that is difficult.

It's actually the ships that have to spend time repositioning and can't just rush into the fight ASAP that will be hurt. PTL Interceptors and things already have to play defensively to win some matchups. It'll be pretty difficult for those ships to get full wins against swarms and lists with lots of ships/hull, even in 75 minutes.

I am personally not a fan of this idea, because a time limit already forces over aggressive behavior. Now any defensive playing, such as disengaging from a fight, which is the best choice some times, will be penalized even more with not even a full win when time is called and ahead by 12+ pts.