LoboStele wrote:
Here's a good example for you. My game with thereisnotry during the Championships at GenCon. It was a mirror match on Teth, so a stand-off for the most part. We only played 4 rounds in the 1 hour time limit. Maybe 5, but I'm pretty sure it was only 4. However, by the end of that 4th round, both of TINT's Speeder and Han were dead, and my Han was dead. At that point, it was obvious who would win, as TINT only had Leia left who could do any damage to my Speeder without rolling crits. If we were to play the game to the full conclusion, I surely would have still won. So, neither of each reached the full match total, but the outcome of the game was quite obvious. Honestly, if the tables were turned opposite, and TINT had beat me that way, I would have surely conceded at that point, even if there were no time limit. It isn't worth playing out the rest of the game. With the 8-round minimum hard-and-fast rule, we would HAVE to play out the other 4 rounds, as I picked off small fodder and his commanders, effectively wasting the time of all the other players who are waiting around (unless someone conceded, but you at least see my point).
So yes, I feel like TINT and I were probably playing a tad slow. Neither of us complained about it though, and we were perfectly OK with how it ended, as honestly, the game likely should have played out similarly even if we'd been playing faster. But even with 4 rounds, we had played enough to show a fairly clear winner (I had killed all his main attacking pieces, while keeping my main piece). So there are certainly instances were only 4-5 rounds is acceptable in an hour. That's where the judges discretion is necessary, IMO.
Since you directly refer to our game, I figure I'll respond too: I agree with your diagnosis. We didn't technically reach 150pts or a full squad kill, but the game had certainly already been decided. So in that way, the game
had been played to completion. Is gaining 150pts the main goal, or is defeating your opponent's squad the main goal, or is simply crippling your opponent's squad the main goal? I'd say all 3 are fully consistent with the intent of the game, because in all 3, a full-out combat engagement has occured. I guess players will quibble about what constitutes a "crippling," but IMHO, once a player realizes his squad has no chance to win the game, it's just sportsmanlike to concede the match.