That's pretty much 100% where I am. Personally, I'd err on the side of giving my opponent a break, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone who doesn't feel the same way. And you can be bloody sure that if I can fly your ship off the board in a tournament game I'm going to do it. I'll probably apologise (because, you know, English), I won't gloat or be a ******, but I'll do it.

I would apologize too, because, you know, Canadian.

Games like this are always a meeting of two people, and if one player wants a cut throat competitive game and the other wants a beer-and-pretzels narrative game, then either both players need to compromise or both players are going to walk away from the table unhappy.

That's what it boils down to, player expectations. What do you expect when you enter a tournament? Just a social meeting without any care of the final standing or a test of skills to know which one of you is the best of the day? You can enter for either reason, but you should not expect everyone to play for the same reason as you. As long as you are not disrespectful and play by the rules (without trying to abuse them), there is nothing wrong with how you play the game.

Regarding capitalizing on your opponent mistakes and continuing with sports analogy ( sorry, that's the only other competitive setting I know, I don't play Magic or WH): In hockey (because, you know, Canadian), if the goalie fall down, should the player wait for him to stand back up before shooting? Of course not. Take your chance and shoot. Capitalize on his error. There is nothing wrong and unsportmanship about it. Same way as in X-Wing, in a tournament setting, if your opponent pick a red maneuver while stressed and you have the chance to move his ship out of the game, why shouldn't you not take it? What is unsportmanship about it? He fell and you shoot.

An opponent in a spaceship game is not an enemy and should not be treated as such.

Idealy both players should be interested in an enjoyable, fair match. The problem is when you have someone who truly believes and behaves like the best way to play is...

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

You forgot to burn their house down... amateurs....

But you are projecting your own social constructs of what constitutes 'friendly' in what is essentially a competitive scenario.

I would say my interpretation of what I said above (which was hardly the all caps OWE THEM NOTHING RAWR it was depicted as) is to be in line with what VandorDM describes as neutral play.

Is there not a difference between calmly saying "I'm sorry but the rules say X,Y,Z" vs. "you ignorant jackweed...etc..."?

If I'm in a tournament (not a friendly game) - I probably won't talk much - not out of rudeness but because of concentration, and natural introversion. I can still be gentle and polite while trying to blast you off the table. But if you come to the competitive table with preconceptions about how somebody should behave and then griping about it, (short of following the rules and not being demeaning to the opponent) - that is, to me, what I am seeing as the militant fly casual

I could also just be wanting to be argumentative today.....

He fell and you shoot.

You Score!!! then because you're Canadian you apologize for it.

Just remember, when you get all spun up, you are doing exactly what this guy wants!

Of course, if your lifelong ambition is to become a Sith Lord, then I guess that's all part of the plan.

Chatting between rounds at a tournament is good. Once the clock starts chatty Kathy is a slowplayer.

Finish fast first then chat.

Oh, I think most people can walk and chew gum.

He fell and you shoot.

You Score!!! then because you're Canadian you apologize for it.

LOL Yeah sorry, forgot that part....

But you are projecting your own social constructs of what constitutes 'friendly' in what is essentially a competitive scenario.

I would say my interpretation of what I said above (which was hardly the all caps OWE THEM NOTHING RAWR it was depicted as) is to be in line with what VandorDM describes as neutral play.

Is there not a difference between calmly saying "I'm sorry but the rules say X,Y,Z" vs. "you ignorant jackweed...etc..."?

If I'm in a tournament (not a friendly game) - I probably won't talk much - not out of rudeness but because of concentration, and natural introversion. I can still be gentle and polite while trying to blast you off the table. But if you come to the competitive table with preconceptions about how somebody should behave and then griping about it, (short of following the rules and not being demeaning to the opponent) - that is, to me, what I am seeing as the militant fly casual

I could also just be wanting to be argumentative today.....

Sorry, your "owe them nothing" brought to mind chest-beating Leonidas screaming "TAKE FROM THEM EVERYTHING!".

It evokes bad memories of playing 40k and WM/H with people who take the game so seriously that they visibly shake and can't control their voice volume (sounds amusing, is actually terrifying)

Of course there's a difference between speaking little but being polite and being a rude nerf herder. I didn't mean to project onto you something that you didn't say.

However, I still feel that you DO owe your opponent a modicum of politeness and friendliness on the table. It just appears that you... agree?

But if you come to the competitive table with preconceptions about how somebody should behave and then griping about it...

I'd say at the very least, griping about someone not being friendly or chatty enough makes you a bit of a jerk anyway.

You shouldn't expect the other person to be charming, witty, and entertaining. You should only expect them to treat you with respect and courtesy, which is IMO the basic requirement for being involved in a social activity of any sort. If you can't act with basic respect and courtesy, you should stay in your cave.

But that is IMO not what the militant casual is about. They are the type of person who gets bent out shape, and starts acting poorly when you don't let them fix a mistake or take an action after the point.

Prime example was someone on these boards some time ago, maybe a year ago now. Who actually threatened to not only flip the table but to actually commit assault on someone who wouldn't let him take actions after the fact. This is of course an extreme example, but was actually said on these boards.

It's people like that, even if they're not quite that extreme that myself or Sitborg are talking about as the militant casual.

Now just like there's a line between WAAC and playing to Win, there is a line between someone who may offer a take back, and someone who demands one.

Point of order: I don't like the term "militant casual"

How casual can they be if they demand a take back in order to help them win? In reality they are just the good old nerf herding WAACer in another form.

Point of order: I don't like the term "militant casual"

How casual can they be if they demand a take back in order to help them win? In reality they are just the good old nerf herding WAACer in another form.

That's sort of the point. The militant casual ISN'T a casual player. They will only play their way, and will try to shame those that don't play their way. They just shy away from the accepted "meta".

1. The inevitable stalling for time complaint: I've already addressed this before as my first post to the board https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/129510-intentionally-stalling-a-game-for-time/?p=1393262 but I wanted to clarify this post. You will never get a definite answer to whether a person is stalling, and you need to call over a judge. If you are like me and a slow player via paralysis through analysis (which is why I was chosen to do that job) then I suggest that you start practicing preparing your moves ahead of time, timing yourself, and repetitively playing your squad so that you are faster on your dials. On my games that I play I try to be finished with all of my dials within 3 minutes. But I am also actively changing my dials while my opponent is moving so that I can have the dial ready (I just check it before placing it on the board). This is after all supposed to be a fast paced, reactionary dogfight style game.

I disagree with this one. In my opinion if somebody is genuinly a slow player, and that's how they enjoy it, they shouldn't feel obliged to hurry up, effectively to alter their playstle to make it suit their opponent. I knowit's irritating sometimes, and I imagine it's significantly worse in a competitive environment with sexy plastic tokens at stake, but it's their right to play how they like*.

*obviously this doesn't include actual stalling, but as you mention it's difficult (impossible?) to prove that's what they're doing.

In my opinion if somebody is genuinly a slow player, and that's how they enjoy it, they shouldn't feel obliged to hurry up, effectively to alter their playstle to make it suit their opponent.

That would be up to the TO to sort out. If someone can't reasonably complete a game in the 60 minute time limit, then there's no difference between what they're doing and stalling for time. Assuming we're talking about tournament play... If it were a friendly game I'd just either wait them out or politely let them know I don't have the kind of time they need to play a game.

If you're going to play in a tournament, you really owe it to everyone to be able to play in the allotted time.

That means if you need 5 minutes per ship to set dials, move the ship, and take your action. You shouldn't bring a Tie Swarm to a tournament. Since it will take you 35 minutes per turn.

but it's their right to play how they like

Their right to play how they like ends the moment it causes harm to someone else. If someone finds that they get a draw in a tournament game because the other person wants to take 20 minutes per turn. Then it's no longer a simple matter of their right to play how they want.

That would be up to the TO to sort out. If someone can't reasonably complete a game in the 60 minute time limit, then there's no difference between what they're doing and stalling for time.

That's true and what I have been saying for a while - you fundamentally can't enforce slow play.

That I will strongly disagree with. It sounds like you are essentially calling for a flat out ban on new players. Getting new players into the game is A Good Thing. Timed games point to a weakness in the tournament rules, not in the player base. If the players need to adapt their play style to make the game balanced, then your game design is wrong. Conversely WAAC players can simply abuse the weakness to gain an advantage.

If we used your rationale, then of the 2 small Store Championships I went to, which were mainly from newer players, those tournaments never would have happened. If we kicked out everyone that played slow, we wouldn't have had enough people.

Can I state that it makes me sick to see Wave 8 threads being speculated when they haven't even leaked all the cards for Wave 7 yet? I want to post in those thread how terrible they are, but it just bumps it to the top and keeps them going.

It sounds like you are essentially calling for a flat out ban on new players.

No, that's why I used the term reasonably. There's a difference between a new player and someone doesn't know the rules at all.

If the person is making a good faith effort to play in the allotted time then it's most likely fine, but again if the other person can't make it past round 2 in the 60 minute time limit, and I get a draw because of that, then I have a legit gripe IMO.

That's why I say it's up to the TO to sort out.

That would be up to the TO to sort out. If someone can't reasonably complete a game in the 60 minute time limit, then there's no difference between what they're doing and stalling for time.

That's true and what I have been saying for a while - you fundamentally can't enforce slow play.

If you're going to play in a tournament, you really owe it to everyone to be able to play in the allotted time.

That I will strongly disagree with. It sounds like you are essentially calling for a flat out ban on new players. Getting new players into the game is A Good Thing. Timed games point to a weakness in the tournament rules, not in the player base. If the players need to adapt their play style to make the game balanced, then your game design is wrong. Conversely WAAC players can simply abuse the weakness to gain an advantage.

If we used your rationale, then of the 2 small Store Championships I went to, which were mainly from newer players, those tournaments never would have happened. If we kicked out everyone that played slow, we wouldn't have had enough people.

No casual game I have ever played has worried about time - ever. We keep to 100pts though. So - talking about time is, to me, only a consideration for competitive, and yeah, you play by the rules or you don't play. Sorry. That isn't 'banning' anyone - I can't play competitive football (soccer). Am I banned because I am not capable of competing at that level? No - I simply don't have the training and experience to do anything other than play a casual game with friends. There's nothing malicious about that.

The rule is 60mn - it could be up to the store to have their own setup w/ longer times but that would be up to the organizer. If all the players are playing slow because of their newness, then just play to time

That would be up to the TO to sort out. If someone can't reasonably complete a game in the 60 minute time limit, then there's no difference between what they're doing and stalling for time.

As far as I know (admittedly I don't the the tournament rules well) there's no rule about how fast you have to play, or that you have to be able to win the game in a given time limit.

I completely disagree. Stalling is playing slowly deliberately for strategic reasons. Motive is everything in this case, that's why it's very hard for a TO to judge.

As far as I know (admittedly I don't the the tournament rules well) there's no rule about how fast you have to play, or that you have to be able to win the game in a given time limit.

All the tournament rules currently have to say is the following:

Casual

Casual events stress fun and a friendly atmosphere. These events help build local communities and are a great way for new players to experience their favorite game without worrying whether they know every little rule. This tier may include leagues, weekly game nights, and any event using a Star Wars: X-Wing™ Miniatures Game variant.

Competitive

Competitive events require players to have general knowledge of a game’s rules. While experienced players will come to these events to compete for prizes, players should not be punished for their lack of understanding in the finer points of Star Wars: X-Wing™ Miniatures Game rules. Players can come to these events expecting a consistent experience from store to store. This tier includes Store Championships and unique, one-off events such as the X-Wing™ Wave 4 Assault at Imdaar Alpha event.

(Underline and emphasis mine)

So, in a Competitive event*, you can expect your opponent to know the rules well. This implies that the person won't be looking up stuff in the rule book every 30s to remember how a k-turn works, what a focus action does, etc.

It's not explicit, but I do think it can come with a certain expectation that your opponent will be able to play at a reasonable speed. "Reasonable" is super-subjective though

*Store Championships must be run as Competitive events, the seasonal kits can be used for Casual or Competitive events (I think?)

Motive is everything in this case, that's why it's very hard for a TO to judge.

Motive is meaningless. Why someone is taking 30 minutes per turn simply doesn't matter. That person shouldn't be playing in a tournament until they can play faster. That or play in one without a time limit.

If I go to a store championship, I expect to be able to play a game in a timely manner, and if after 30 minutes of game time, the other person is still setting his dials for the 2nd round. I'm going to call the TO over and ask him to do something about it.

Because we have now reached a point where my win/loss and MOV is being directly affected by the other persons speed of play. It is not even remotely fair to myself or anyone else playing to get a draw rather than a win, because the other person took 50 minutes to get his ships into firing range of other ships.

So, in a Competitive event*, you can expect your opponent to know the rules well. This implies that the person won't be looking up stuff in the rule book every 30s to remember how a k-turn works, what a focus action does, etc.

It's not explicit, but I do think it can come with a certain expectation that your opponent will be able to play at a reasonable speed. "Reasonable" is super-subjective though *Store Championships must be run as Competitive events, the seasonal kits can be used for Casual or Competitive events (I think?)

Sounds about right - they shouldn't be looking up rules all the time (although they may need clarification on rules), but they're free to take their time thinking about their moves.

Motive is everything in this case, that's why it's very hard for a TO to judge.

Motive is meaningless. Why someone is taking 30 minutes per turn simply doesn't matter. That person shouldn't be playing in a tournament until they can play faster. That or play in one without a time limit.If I go to a store championship, I expect to be able to play a game in a timely manner, and if after 30 minutes of game time, the other person is still setting his dials for the 2nd round. I'm going to call the TO over and ask him to do something about it.Because we have now reached a point where my win/loss and MOV is being directly affected by the other persons speed of play. It is not even remotely fair to myself or anyone else playing to get a draw rather than a win, because the other person took 50 minutes to get his ships into firing range of other ships.

How it affects you is meaningless. You don't like their play style, that's your problem, they might not like how impatient and pushy you seem to them.

How it affects you is meaningless.

I have no choice on who I'm paired up with in a tournament, and as such how their play affects me matters a great deal. If I can't get my ships into firing range, because the person takes 45 minutes to get his dials set, then I have been given a draw, not because the other person beat me, I've been given a draw because the game never actually happened.

This isn't a matter of them taking 2 or 3 minutes longer to set their dials then me, it's a matter of them taking 15-20 minutes longer. This is no longer a matter of play style, it's a matter of not actually playing the game.

At that point I will call over the TO and let them deal with it.

I suppose though, the fact that you think expecting to play more than 2 turns in 60 minutes to be pushy... Says all that needs to be said.

Somebody (in this thread or elsewhere) likened the movement phase to chess - could we ever see a time in which there might be a need to time the movement phase for each round and just get rid of the subjective opinions about how long it should take? I wonder what the play tester's at FFG unwritten expectations are

How it affects you is meaningless.

I have no choice on who I'm paired up with in a tournament, and as such how their play affects me matters a great deal. If I can't get my ships into firing range, because the person takes 45 minutes to get his dials set, then I have been given a draw, not because the other person beat me, I've been given a draw because the game never actually happened.This isn't a matter of them taking 2 or 3 minutes longer to set their dials then me, it's a matter of them taking 15-20 minutes longer. This is no longer a matter of play style, it's a matter of not actually playing the game.At that point I will call over the TO and let them deal with it.I suppose though, the fact that you think expecting to play more than 2 turns in 60 minutes to be pushy... Says all that needs to be said.

I'm not talking about the absurd examples you've giving here, I'm talking about the concept of subjective opinions. The fact you don't seem to get that says all that needs to be said.