So here is the situation: Player A is running a list of high ps arc dodgers and has the initiative. Player B is running BBBBZ. As player A has a high probability of losing a ship while closing player A elects to use his superior speed to force player B in to a chase scenario in the hopes that he can break up his formation. The result despite a few shots exchanged at long range neither side fully commits. As time runs out with no ships lost Player A scores a modified win based on initiative. Player B declares player A has slow played or stalled the game. In my observation he did not "slow play" in the conventional sense. My question: Is this technically "slow play" and if so is it a legitimate strategy?
Can highly defensive play be ethical in some situations?
I'd say it's legitimate.
Anyway in Swiss rounds it'd be a draw, not a minor victory.
In a elimination round the B player should have played better and get some shots on the A 
The high PS should be able to run down the B's. I think slow play is taking a extremely long time to put down tokens or making maneuvers. Let the TO know about the issue so he/she is aware and can monitor the player.
From what you describe, I wouldn't call it slow play. It sounds like it was a truly boring match but it seems to have been played correctly. Personally, I would hesitate to play against such a person again. I'm more of a 'fly casual' person and I'd rather avoid WAAC behaviour.
"Fly Casual" does not, never has, and never will mean "Fly in such a way that you hand over the game to the opponent." The arc-dodger played to his squad's strengths and refused to walk into his opponent's strengths. The opponent did the exact same thing in reverse. They are both just as much "at fault" for the game dragging on in such a manner, but in reality neither did anything wrong. Sometimes games like that happen.
What has this situation got to do with ethics?
There's rules against refusing to engage.
If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.
Edited by Vulf"Fly Casual" does not, never has, and never will mean "Fly in such a way that you hand over the game to the opponent." The arc-dodger played to his squad's strengths and refused to walk into his opponent's strengths. The opponent did the exact same thing in reverse. They are both just as much "at fault" for the game dragging on in such a manner, but in reality neither did anything wrong. Sometimes games like that happen.
Exactly this. Just because you are down to say one ship, does not mean that because a loss is very likely that you have to resign to it. Keep that ship alive by any means.
Don't play slow, that's a bad move, but don't just suddenly change your tactics and joust and get yourself killed.
Playing the game in any manner is alright. Even if it results in very little combat actions.
However stalling is not playing the game. Now some people get confused on the definition of stalling. Moving in defensive positions and taking your time looking for the best situations is not stalling. Taking 15 minuets to place dials, 5 minuets to roll a single dice, 10 minuets to choose the one or two actions in the action step, or taking 12 minuets to declare an attack. That is stalling and that is not playing the game X-wing.
happens in tournaments all the time... get ahead on points the run and defend until time is up
So here is the situation: Player A is running a list of high ps arc dodgers and has the initiative. Player B is running BBBBZ. As player A has a high probability of losing a ship while closing player A elects to use his superior speed to force player B in to a chase scenario in the hopes that he can break up his formation. The result despite a few shots exchanged at long range neither side fully commits. As time runs out with no ships lost Player A scores a modified win based on initiative. Player B declares player A has slow played or stalled the game. In my observation he did not "slow play" in the conventional sense. My question: Is this technically "slow play" and if so is it a legitimate strategy?
Yes, should take advantage of every aspect of your and your opponents squad. To chase and lure is a strong part of some squads and of the game
There's rules against refusing to engage.
If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.
No, there are not. There are rules against slow play, but those two are not at all the same thing.
Edited by DR4CO"Fly Casual" does not, never has, and never will mean "Fly in such a way that you hand over the game to the opponent." The arc-dodger played to his squad's strengths and refused to walk into his opponent's strengths. The opponent did the exact same thing in reverse. They are both just as much "at fault" for the game dragging on in such a manner, but in reality neither did anything wrong. Sometimes games like that happen.
My thoughts exactly.
A game can even end without a single shot being fired if both players decided to tower at a corner. A fun game no, a legal game yes.
As long as both players place their dials in a timely manner, no one can be accused of stalling.
Edited by tsondaboy
There's rules against refusing to engage.
If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.
No, there are not. There are rules against slow play, but those two are not at all the same thing.
Unsportsmanlike conduct. It depends on what the organizer considers that to be. Purposefully frustrating your opponenet to win by technicality would qualify in most cases.
Sounds like a dull way to spend 75 minutes but nothing unethical or immoral.
Don't see how B can accuse A of stalling when B also refused to engage. The other player refusing to engage on your terms is not stalling.
There's rules against refusing to engage.
If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.
No, there are not. There are rules against slow play, but those two are not at all the same thing.
Unsportsmanlike conduct. It depends on what the organizer considers that to be. Purposefully frustrating your opponenet to win by technicality would qualify in most cases.
So what he is he supposed to do? Throw the game by walking into his opponent's guns? He was trying to lure the opponent into breaking formation, not frustrate him into conceding. Why is the opponent not in trouble for refusing to break formation and let the arc-dodger come to him? He was just as much at "fault" (if there was fault to be laid, which there is not).
Just because your opponent doesn't want to give you a free win does not make him a bad sportsman.
Edited by DR4COYeah there's no obligations to hand the other guy a win because your list is ill suited to take on theirs.
I'd prefer to have a scrap but it's a tournament so winning is more important than putting up a good fight and losing with grace.
If he hadn't had initiative and done the same thing only then would his behaviour have been poor sportsmanship, he had a chance to win and took it.
yeah I was really confused there
defensive play is one thing; the four minute dial is another
besides, if he's doing nothing but running (implying you have a full squad at your disposal) then really it's your fault for letting him get away 
incidentally, avoiding a joust and trying to force the opposing swarm to scatter around obstacles is exactly how you're supposed to beat them. If anyone gets upset because people are flying instead of rolling dice, point them towards 40k.
Edited by ficklegreendiceI think we can all agree if you are setting down dials, moving ships, making actions, declaring attacks, and rolling dice all in a reasonable amount of time you are playing the game correctly if there were attacks in the combat phase or not.
Remember you are also in control of whether or not an attack is made. So if there were no attacks in a 75 minute game yet you had 30 turns of placing maneuver dials and moving models you share some of the blame for the lack of combat phase. If it was that difficult for you to get an enemy within a firing arc maybe you should think about picking up a ship with a turret. 
There's rules against refusing to engage.
If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.
No, there are not. There are rules against slow play, but those two are not at all the same thing.
Unsportsmanlike conduct. It depends on what the organizer considers that to be. Purposefully frustrating your opponenet to win by technicality would qualify in most cases.
So here is the situation: Player A is running a list of high ps arc dodgers and has the initiative. Player B is running BBBBZ. As player A has a high probability of losing a ship while closing player A elects to use his superior speed to force player B in to a chase scenario in the hopes that he can break up his formation. The result despite a few shots exchanged at long range neither side fully commits. As time runs out with no ships lost Player A scores a modified win based on initiative. Player B declares player A has slow played or stalled the game. In my observation he did not "slow play" in the conventional sense. My question: Is this technically "slow play" and if so is it a legitimate strategy?
Minor point: Initiative only grants a win in elimination. Otherwise the game result above is a draw.
It's only slow play if you deliberately waste time setting dials or deciding on actions. If player A is constantly moving the game along, then there's nothing wrong. What I would do is compare the number of rounds they went through in that game to other games. If there weren't way less rounds played, then player A didn't stall or slow play.
...
Sorry but that was a really poor usage of that meme. The poster did not write a long, idiotic rant, he simply posted one line that you didn't agree with.
...
Sorry but that was a really poor usage of that meme. The poster did not write a long, idiotic rant, he simply posted one line that you didn't agree with.
