Thank you all for your input and views, I will try to be more assertive with him and the TOs about my view of slow play. For context, though I have not monitored other games of his each time we play we rarely if ever get more than 9-10 rounds in over 75 mins, which certainly takes the fun out of the game waiting for him to set dials for several minites each round.

I guess I would, as many of you seem to agree with, like to see more clear definition in the rules regarding acceptable time allocation for planning dials as well as post maneuver movement like boost/barrel roll.

Its okay to tell someone to "try and set dials faster, please" if you feel they are going a tad slow. I was playing Corran Horn in regionals, and in the 1st engagement round, I was thinking a bit too long and my opponent said just that. I understood exactly why, because I have a regenning ship that can token up and he wants as many rounds as possible to kill him. I didnt think "What a ****, leave me alone." I realized his reason and said "Sorry, no problem."

Playing to time is a strategy however. 98% of miranda lists are built for that. 100% of kylo lists, quad wookiees, etc.

Nothing wrong with it. FFG basically designs ships for it.

It's a legitimate strategy because it's part of the game (in competitive play at least, if someone did that in a casual game I'd just pick up my stuff and find someone else to play). What it comes down to is if your goal is to win, you should make the decisions that give you the greatest chance of doing so. If I'm in the lead I play much more cautiously, which usually open up more opportunities to get ahead as an opponent gets desperate and starts to make mistakes.

That being said, I HATE slow playing. It is cheating. If he is, call him on it, and if he doesn't adjust quickly, call a judge.Gold Squadron Podcast had a really great episode on slow playing, with a bunch of data around what is the normal pace of play.

I think it's one of these two:
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/goldsquadronpodcast/episodes/2017-09-24T19_38_58-07_00
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/goldsquadronpodcast/episodes/2017-10-22T22_18_05-07_00

5 hours ago, phild0 said:

If you are up on points, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure the opponent has enough rounds to try and beat you.

Yeah, unfortunately the exact opposite has happened at my LGS. For league night we do 60 minute rounds, and certain players will figure out ahead of time what the victory conditions are, based on the breakpoints... the goal isn't to beat your opponent outright, it's to ensure that when you get to 60 minutes you're up on points.

It's not fun. Between that and the balance issues the game has, I have stopped playing at my LGS.

This reminds me, I really wanna try objective based play as a way to avoid 'run til time' being a valid strategy. If you have to actually compete to win, it's a lot harder to do that.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

This reminds me, I really wanna try objective based play as a way to avoid 'run til time' being a valid strategy. If you have to actually compete to win, it's a lot harder to do that.

It's utterly fantastic. There's a competitive mission pack floating around the forums, and the tournament I played in that used it was perhaps my most fun gaming experience ever. It flips the meta entirely, and doesn't even create its own.

I think that while playing to time is technically a legitimate strategy, so is fortressing. The only difference is that one of them has to be decided upon in advance and cannot be changed in just a few turns, and the latter can be reversed at any moment while providing better firepower. Can you guess which one more people complain about? Shooting then running away with multiple hyper-fast, agile, PS9 aces isn't a skill-based victory, and thus shouldn't have a part in the game.

I believe the best (and, at this point, only) way to stop these kind of BS strategies is to institute an armada-like point scoring system for games. A sliding scale from 1-10 points based upon the difference in points destroyed would dramatically change the focus of the game in a beneficial way. Variance, the skill-curve and the basic game are unchanged, but playing to intentionally win by a narrow amount of points is no longer an option, regardless of the form it takes. MoV can be kept as a tie-breaking measure, but no more.

9 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Time limits were added so tournaments can happen. They aren’t “house rules”

lol. you can try to be smug about semantics, but its pretty obvious that I understood and continue to understand that time limits are official in tournaments. time limit is however a rule that only exists in a tournament setting. traditionally a gaming establishment, club, or tournament is called the "house", thus "house rule" is an added rule for the tournament setting. its what the expression means. the entire game of texas holdem for example was house rules until it got popular enough to become its own version of poker

4 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

lol. you can try to be smug about semantics, but its pretty obvious that I understood and continue to understand that time limits are official in tournaments. time limit is however a rule that only exists in a tournament setting. traditionally a gaming establishment, club, or tournament is called the "house", thus "house rule" is an added rule for the tournament setting. its what the expression means. the entire game of texas holdem for example was house rules until it got popular enough to become its own version of poker

*Accelerates obtuseness to over 88 miles per hour*

Where we're going, we don't need rules!

4 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

lol. you can try to be smug about semantics, but its pretty obvious that I understood and continue to understand that time limits are official in tournaments. time limit is however a rule that only exists in a tournament setting. traditionally a gaming establishment, club, or tournament is called the "house", thus "house rule" is an added rule for the tournament setting. its what the expression means. the entire game of texas holdem for example was house rules until it got popular enough to become its own version of poker

Do you also consider determining Initiative a House Rule? IIRC, according to the core set printed Rules the Imperial player has initiative and the dice roll is also a tournament house rule. Come to think about it, I think non-tournament setup is different too.

1 minute ago, LordBlades said:

Do you also consider determining Initiative a House Rule? IIRC, according to the core set printed Rules the Imperial player has initiative and the dice roll is also a tournament house rule. Come to think about it, I think non-tournament setup is different too.

This hasn't been the case since the TFA rules were release though.

Non-tournament setup includes the option of switching table sides but nobody ever bothers.

Taking longer to set your dials is wrong. That’s slow play. But running to time is fine. If you can’t kill him in time, that’s on you. You know his strategy, so you know how he’s going to play. However, he shouldn’t slow play you. Some players are just slow though. I joke that one of the local players should play double regen and he could win every game he played simply by it going to time, sadly he finally took my advice lol.

Glad to see common sense prevailing.

Yes, playing to time is a legitimate strategy if conditions are right, and assuming there's no other grotesque (ab)use of time. What that constitutes is a bit hard to define however. Some people think longer and more methodically than others and thus play slower. Some players play super fast and off of instinct. How people process information and what speed they do so at is part choice, but also part naturally caused by various factors. For instance a new player will just play slower, period. And you may find that frustrating, but what are you going to do about it? Are you going to force them to make decisions they regret by not having taken the time they need to consider their options? If so I'd say that makes you the 'cheater' for not giving your opponent a chance to play. I'd rather my opponent make moves he regrets only by my play being better and outsmarting them. I DON'T want them to regret a move because they felt rushed. I want to play each opponent at their best. And if that means it will take ten minutes to resolve a turn? Awesome, I'll have the same ten minutes to make plans myself. In this instant gratification world, I know I'm playing a human being and not an AI. And that means decisions are going to take time. Bottom line, I'd rather play fewer more meaningful and well thought out rounds than more rounds that aren't satisfying. So please if your my opponent, take your time, all that you need to get the best play for me to go against. I'd rather keep playing to time or play again than sit on my thumbs for twenty minutes between rounds anyway.

13 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Glad to see common sense prevailing.

Yes, playing to time is a legitimate strategy if conditions are right, and assuming there's no other grotesque (ab)use of time. What that constitutes is a bit hard to define however. Some people think longer and more methodically than others and thus play slower. Some players play super fast and off of instinct. How people process information and what speed they do so at is part choice, but also part naturally caused by various factors. For instance a new player will just play slower, period. And you may find that frustrating, but what are you going to do about it? Are you going to force them to make decisions they regret by not having taken the time they need to consider their options? If so I'd say that makes you the 'cheater' for not giving your opponent a chance to play. I'd rather my opponent make moves he regrets only by my play being better and outsmarting them. I DON'T want them to regret a move because they felt rushed. I want to play each opponent at their best. And if that means it will take ten minutes to resolve a turn? Awesome, I'll have the same ten minutes to make plans myself. In this instant gratification world, I know I'm playing a human being and not an AI. And that means decisions are going to take time. Bottom line, I'd rather play fewer more meaningful and well thought out rounds than more rounds that aren't satisfying. So please if your my opponent, take your time, all that you need to get the best play for me to go against. I'd rather keep playing to time or play again than sit on my thumbs for twenty minutes between rounds anyway.

Yeah, getting fast played is more common than slow play in my opinion. I have to watch myself that I don’t accidentally fast play someone.

Yes, it is definitely a legitimate strategy to run away for time or play solely to MOV. Just like bombs, regen, etc. Things that many people come here to complain about as "NPE" are all actually completely tournament legal.

That said, lots of these things go against individual definitions of what x-wing is "supposed to be". It's a problem best dealt with in terms of individuals. Put another way, you can't please everyone, especially when the standards are mostly made up. So, like most reasonable people, you do what you can to please the people whose approval and friendship is most important to you, while hopefully still caring for yourself.

My best advice is to try to play some games with others in the future. Perspective is an amazing thing. Maybe you find out that other players annoy you even more. The devil you know. Maybe you find out you actually just don't like the game. Maybe it just helps you better define what you don't like about how he plays. At the very least, you can compare dial setting times and game flow. Plus, absence does make the heart grow fonder, even if it probably shouldn't at times.

Anyway, best of luck with your friend and this game. Whatever you decide to do, make sure you do something, not nothing. You should not feel obligated to be a part of any individual game you don't enjoy in some way.

I have ZERO problem with a guy playing to time as long as he is NOT slow-playing. There is a huge difference.

I don't know of any intentional slow-players in my area. I don't understand it, I mean - don't you want people to like you? Do you just not care about being "that guy"?