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

That would be a fine rule in a Speed X-Wing tournament.

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.

So here is the real question:

How long is too long?

2 turns in 60 minutes is obviously extremely slow, but I don't know if that has ever happened in the entire history of any X-wing tournaments ever, so that is not a meaningful example.

What about 5 turns? 8? 10? 15?

What if it takes 4 rounds to get into combat, then there's 3 rounds of combat, and then there are 5 more rounds where there are no shots fired because one person runs away, and he plays slowly in the meantime? That's 12 rounds, so 5 minutes per round, but only 3 rounds of combat.

The line gets extremely blurry and grey in practice, so the extreme example of 2 rounds in 60 minutes does not really cement the argument. Sure it applies for that one case (that has probably never happened, ever), but in a real situation there is no clear way to fundamentally define let alone enforce slow play. It doesn't matter if the motivation is to prevent intentional abuse, or to just not have a slow-as-molasses game.

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'd actually be against that, because then it becomes a matter of gaming the clock in a different way. You're just trading one problem for another. I also don't think there needs to be a minimum number of rounds. Because that too is something that can be gamed.

I think it should be left up to the TO, because the TO can look at the situation, watch the game for a few minutes and make a judgement call based on what he sees, and deal with the situation as needed.

Maybe a simple comment about speeding up your game is enough, maybe the other person will realize they're in way over their head and bow out. Maybe the TO will offer one player a win, and ask if would mind thinking of it as a demo/teaching game.

Maybe the person is clearly trying to run out the clock and needs to be dealt with more harshly.

Either way, it's IMO better to leave it in the hands of someone who can make a judgement based on everything that's going on in that situation then a hard and fast rule.

The fact you don't seem to get that says all that needs to be said.

Just to make it crystal clear, in the hopes that you might actually comprehend what my point is...

If someone is taking 2-4 minutes per turn and I'm taking 1, that is not an issue. Even as many as 5 wouldn't be an issue, I wouldn't push them, I wouldn't call the TO over, I wouldn't even comment.

If however they are taking 15 minutes per turn, then yes that is an issue and that is a case where I'd feel justified in calling the TO over about it. I don't think anyone would reasonably feel that 15 minutes per turn is justified regardless of why it's taking them that long, when there's a 60 minute time limit.

How long is too long?

That is the question and one I don't know that we can answer.

It doesn't matter if the motivation is to prevent intentional abuse, or to just not have a slow-as-molasses game.

Which is why it's best left up to the TO as I said in my above post.

The question "how long is too long" has me thinking about a possible solution to intentional slow play. Or at least a way of providing a disincentive for it.

What if you were to do a "minimum round limit" that both players had to get through or else both suffer a loss with 0 MOV points (in order to make it painful for both players). Obviously games ending with the destruction of one player's squadron prior to this limit would resolve in the normal fashion.

The question would be where to set that round limit. It'd have to be something fair that even new players could achieve. Is two rounds per 15 minutes fair? If so we could have the minimum rounds be 8 for 60 minute round tourneys and 10 for 75 minute round tourneys.

The question "how long is too long" has me thinking about a possible solution to intentional slow play. Or at least a way of providing a disincentive for it.

What if you were to do a "minimum round limit" that both players had to get through or else both suffer a loss with 0 MOV points (in order to make it painful for both players). Obviously games ending with the destruction of one player's squadron prior to this limit would resolve in the normal fashion.

The question would be where to set that round limit. It'd have to be something fair that even new players could achieve. Is two rounds per 15 minutes fair? If so we could have the minimum rounds be 8 for 60 minute round tourneys and 10 for 75 minute round tourneys.

Even with a minimum round limit you can still pretty easily game the system. If you have a higher PS ship with Engine Upgrade and get a lead, then you can generally just run around the map for a while killing rounds / time.

P.S. If the player slow playing / running away is getting completely annihilated but is winning on points, then there is zero reason for him to engage, unless you make full wins worth 0 points if the game goes to time. And that's a bad idea because then that kills swarms.

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

This goes both ways though. If you have expectations that a player should be super competitive, and they are used to more relaxation in their games, then your preconceptions are not being met.

You're going to be unhappy because you're not getting the pure competition you desire, and your opponent isn't happy because he's getting thrashed when he's used to a bit of leeway.

Both players need to compromise, or they're both going to have a negative experience.

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

This goes both ways though. If you have expectations that a player should be super competitive, and they are used to more relaxation in their games, then your preconceptions are not being met.You're going to be unhappy because you're not getting the pure competition you desire, and your opponent isn't happy because he's getting thrashed when he's used to a bit of leeway.Both players need to compromise, or they're both going to have a negative experience.

Exactly, and this whole things about preconceptions is one of the reasons we have fixed rules. The rules don't say you should play at a certain speed, so expecting people to do so is unreasonable.

The rules don't say you should play at a certain speed, so expecting people to do so is unreasonable.

The rules do actually say something about that.

This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, etc.

It then says...

The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

So that means the TO if they feel someone is stealing, which isn't defined, so it's completely up to the TO to decide what is or isn't... Can remove that player for poor sportsmanship. No where does it say that the TO has to prove the motivation behind it, only that they are allowed to deal with as they see fit. Upto removing them from the tournament.

For example, no TO is going to allow someone to play so slowly that the first round lasts 60 minutes. Few would even allow 15 minutes per turn.

So yes, you are in fact expected to play at a given speed, namely a speed that won't get you kicked out by the TO. What that speed may be, is going to vary from TO to TO.

Of course based what seems to be your logic, there should be nothing wrong with someone taking 60 minute per turn... I mean if we can't expect people to play at a given speed, that means no amount of time is too much.

So which is it? Is 60-90 minutes a round fine, or is there a reasonable expectation that someone will play faster than that?

Revisited the tournament rules:

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, etc.

Dogfight tournaments for the X-Wing miniatures game are held in a series of 75 minute tournament rounds. Tournament organizers may adjust this number up or down by up to fifteen minutes as they see fit, to a minimum of 60 and a maximum of 90.

There's nothing about sociability, talkativeness, or being either easy going or cutthroat.

Be mature and considerate, play by the rules, if a TO has an idea that most people at their tourney are new, bump the time to 90mn and if you think people are intentionally stalling, call it out. It's kind of like what was once said about that, ahem, mature content on the internet...I don't know how you define it exactly, but you know it when you see it.

This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time,

Exactly. Like I said earlier, it refers to motives, not speed.

I'll ask again.

Is 90 minute rounds fine, or should I reasonably expect someone to play faster than that?

Exactly. Like I said earlier, it refers to motives, not speed.

I'll ask again.Is 90 minute rounds fine, or should I reasonably expect someone to play faster than that?

If somebody's taking an hour and a half per round I would assume they're ill and should have your sympathy.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, it refers to motives, not speed.

I'll ask again.Is 90 minute rounds fine, or should I reasonably expect someone to play faster than that?

If somebody's taking an hour and a half per round I would assume they're ill and should have your sympathy.

But again, that's nothing to do with the rules. That's your expectation, which is subjective and in no way binding on other people.

If somebody's taking an hour and a half per round I would assume they're ill and should have your sympathy.

That's not an answer.

You have claimed there is no reasonable expectation that someone plays at a given speed. That means someone can take 90 minutes to finish the first round in a timed event, and apparently the TO can do nothing about it, unless he can prove a motive.

So which is it? Is there a reasonable speed of play everyone can expect or is 90 minute rounds ok?

I fear the answer to VandorDM's question is going to be along the lines of 'not in my backyard' - somebody won't have any problem with slow playing until it affects them personally, at which point they will magically have a hard and fast understanding as to what constitutes slow play

You have claimed there is no reasonable expectation that someone plays at a given speed. ... Is there a reasonable speed of play everyone can expect or is 90 minute rounds ok?

No I haven't. I said a person's concept of what's a reasonable speed is a subjective opinion, nothing more. Given you keep asking what I think the reasonable value is suggests you don't understand what subjective means - where I would draw the line (I have no idea, by the way) is irrelevant.

I fear the answer to VandorDM's question is going to be along the lines of 'not in my backyard' - somebody won't have any problem with slow playing until it affects them personally, at which point they will magically have a hard and fast understanding as to what constitutes slow play

Wow, I hope it's just lack of tone on the Internet, cos that sounds quite offensive to me.

No I haven't. I said a person's concept of what's a reasonable speed is a subjective opinion, nothing more.

So you won't answer the question then, as I figured. Since you won't, because you know you can't without destroying your own argument... I'm done debating it with you.

No I haven't. I said a person's concept of what's a reasonable speed is a subjective opinion, nothing more.

So you won't answer the question then, as I figured.

I did answer, I said I've no idea where I draw the line.

So you don't get it then? The whole point about it being subject, you just don't understand?

yeah, I was being mostly sarcastic in my tone but your responses pretty much (to me anyway) validated what I was saying. You won't have an answer until it affects you in a game you are playing - at which point it will be absolutely clear to you that somebody is stalling

I think Vandor is suggesting that it would be more helpful to have a more objective idea (even if it is a broad one) before that happens.

yeah, I was being mostly sarcastic in my tone but your responses pretty much (to me anyway) validated what I was saying. You won't have an answer until it affects you in a game you are playing - at which point it will be absolutely clear to you that somebody is stalling

I think Vandor is suggesting that it would be more helpful to have a more objective idea (even if it is a broad one) before that happens.

Maybe it would be helpful, but if there were a concrete objective time limit it would be a different game, and people would have to adapt.

My point is the game currently has no such time limit, and each individual person will have their own idea of what a reasonable time is, so to expect other people to abide by your idea of what this is is absurd and arrogant.

What's with this accusation that I don't have an answer to a question I never said I had an answer to, the validity of the question itself I even called into question, anyway?

Lol - I apologize, I'm not trying to be as accusatory as it probably seems that I am. I think, perhaps the trouble is that the rules say that intentionally stalling is prohibited, but, as you say, everyone will have a different idea as to what is a reasonable amount of time to complete a move - and on top of that, we have this ambiguous layer of 'motive' - are they 'just slow' or are they 'deliberately slow' and at what point does 'just slow' cross the line to harming the intention / spirit of the rules and a timed game?

That kind of ambiguity leads to arguments like this

No I haven't. I said a person's concept of what's a reasonable speed is a subjective opinion, nothing more.

So you won't answer the question then, as I figured. Since you won't, because you know you can't without destroying your own argument... I'm done debating it with you.

He did answer just not the way you want, your being very unreasonable.