Well, like I said it was not the only person that said this to me, but one of the people that I know the best and trust the most to be truthful about it.

Regardless, I still think that if the judges in the future are going to be aggressive about slow play then there needs to be a section stating out how it will be handled so there is absolutely zero confusion.

Oh please, we layed out exactly how we were going to call it. Either get this person on here to make his case, or leave it alone. It's a complete waste of time to do the old, "well I heard it from someone" argument that I can't even respond to. If there was a real problem we would like to know about it. The one example you gave was completely incorrect. So honestly, why would I care about the secret friend argument, or take that seriously as something that really needs to be changed? Brad, help me out here.

I will say that Brandon Pyle told me Brad warned him for swapping Lord Vader to safety during the "Swiss" rounds, which affected how he played his final top 8 matches.

The rules state exactly what it should be: that games are expected to be completed within 1 hour. Using the Lancer or Lord Vader swap techniques are totally fine, but many players utilize that technique as a way to win their games by eliminating a key piece, and then letting time run out. If you can play those squads AND defeat your opponent within the time limit, then you are good to go. Otherwise, you're going to get a slow play warning. Part of the point of having the rule is also to push people toward squad builds which are designed to defeat their opponents, not surgical strike tactics which win by scores of 45-25 because you killed one main piece, and then you both got 5 rounds of gambit.

If by that you mean a new ability that also works for low objects, I will agree.
But that won't help in Dynamic Duo.

Am I missing something if the definition of Pathfinder or difficult terrain?

Why should a huge beast or machine be slowed down by a desk, potted plant or a maintenance droid?

I forgot the Reb Pathfinder had a new ability rather than granting Stable Footing to characters within 6.

So, yes, the design team could address it in the best way possible. It's still preferable IMHO to do so from the character design perspective than floor rules. Honestly, the move of losing Rigid to universal status rather than just sealed was a concession to the greater good of the map list change, rather than being a good idea on its own. It's not a particularly good idea in a vaccuum, it's just better than the lousy alternative.

From what I heard, decisions about whether slow play was occurring or not were made IMMEDIATELY rather than the game being watched. I found that surprisingly difficult to believe, but I did hear multiple people say it. Some of them I know personally and some I don't.

I disagree with your assessment that the above example constitutes slow play, but that is just my own personal stance. I thought the 2-point vs. 3-point win was designed to address that issue. It's something we talked about before. If I have a squad that I realize can't win, it's my right to accept the 2-point win and lock myself in a room for 5 rounds. I will spin my Ugs and Dodonna/San/Ozzel as fast as you want me to.

Yes, the 2 point win is supposed to help alleviate it. The problem is, at Regionals or at a local level, 2 point wins mean very little. Even at GenCon, someone going 5-1 only had to win two games with the full 3 points in order to guarantee a spot in the top 8. The short version of it, is that players only scoring 2 point victories are not abiding by the 'spirit' of the game, which is to defeat your opponent. Nobody likes playing someone who kills 1 piece, and then hides for 2 rounds.

Basically, if you're going to play squads like Lancer and Lord Vader swap, and you intend to hide for 2-3 rounds in between your deep strikes, then you ought to be playing VERY fast. I have the tournament file in front of me here, and Brandon only had one 2 point win for the whole day, winning his other 4 games by the full 3 points. And that 2 point win was his very first game. I don't know what all happened, but I would guess that Bill/Brad gave him a warning for Slow Play based on that first game and....oh look, it worked, because he finished all the other games under time.

When it got to the Top 8 games....well....that's another matter entirely, IMO. I sort of ran into something similar in our games, as I knew if I was to go for a full 200 point win against Dan Stephens, I wouldn't have much chance of winning. I could win the game simply by sitting in gambit, but that wasn't the 'spirit' of the game, so I chose to play differently, and it cost me.

So, perhaps in relation to the final Top 8 games at GenCon, the discussion could be steered a little differently. I'm not really sure how we could do it differently, except to have no time limit on those games, but have the judges standing by to pressure players to speed up if they're taking way too long.

Guess you should have been there then. If someone actually in the tournament wants to comment and debate the issue, then so be it. I'm done talking to someone who wasn't there, and only has hearsay.

I do agree with that principle. I'm still for doing it though.

I guess I missed something during the Champs.

Did tons of people get losses for slow play?

I mean a warning that is it? isnt that right? SO I guess I did not see where everything went so badly at the champs. So Brandon is saying that slow play warning changed the way he played the top 8 and he could have won it all if he had not been given that warning? I mean he came in second so I am having trouble seeing how badly it effected his play?

I have not heard all the numerous complaints either. Can you name some of the folks please??? All these folks are seeking you out to discuss how badly the championships went. I seem to remember this isnt the first time people seek you out to complain about something. I hope this time you can name names. I would like to talk to these folks that are coming to you to complain. That way I can see what we can do to make things better next year. I can message Brandon on Facebook to see what his complaints were. Can you tell me the others?

Well first of all, I'm not trying to "debate" anything and I was very clear about that in my first post in this thread. I simply think clarification about it is needed if its going to be pursued more aggressively.

Secondly, well no way to put this mildly. SCREW YOU. You know why I wasn't there.

Dean, I am not going to validate any of your comments with a response. Guess you can add that to your "list."

Hrmmm, I don't remember this so I can't respond. The only slow play warning I gave Brandon was during the Championship that I recall, and both he and Dan got it. They had played 2 rounds in 30 minutes. All of Brandon's other games in the Champs finished well beneath time, and emerged with him as the victor...so if it did affect his play, I'm not sure what the issue is???

Edit: Pulled out my notebook from the day. Are you sure it was an actual warning, cause it didn't get written down? It's quite possible that I may have been advising him after game that some could consider that, in certain situations, a stalling move. IE...Vader has 10 HP's and you never bring him back out etc etc.

I'm sure you can call it "aggressive" calling of slow play, but like Bill said, they knew how we were going to call it from minute one of Round one. Honestly, until I see some evidence of an actual slow play warning causing a player loss, then I am not going to apologize for anything I may or may not have done. Even then I likely still won't .

Since it's been brought up, however, and before this particular situation gets called out. I know I spoke heavely on Stalling prior to the final 8 rounds. One player took my words to heart and it may have cost him the game. However, I DID NOT warn him. In fact, I was not even aware of the situation until the next round when I heard my name mentioned from their table. I'm sure he'd hate to hear this, but since the figure in question was active (by gaining Gambit) I would not have done so.

Double Edit: To keep this tamed down, go ahead and have Bradon call/FB me. As I really would like to hear the situation and discuss it with him somewhat. Actually, I can FB him too.

Maybe it was in a championship round, I'm not sure. I remember him telling us about it on the car ride home, and I admit I was still in a bit of a fog then. I'm sorry this turned into a debate about the Championship - that really was not the intent.

Well then, we can be done with this part of the topic then. The only two examples you've given, were clearly deserved warnings, and no changes are needed to the floor rules as a result of that. Moving on.

Again, not asking for "changes." The term I used was "clarification."

Moving on, indeed.

Eh, no harm to my feelings Brandon seemed pretty non-chalant in his reply on FB too.

@bill,Dean
Can I make a new thread with all the Custom maps on it? Not about voting just so all the maps are in one place so people can see them and say what they think overall?

sure why not