I'm just curious if anyone else feels you should only get a 1 point win for only completing 4 rounds in an hour long game.

No bad mouthing, no arguing, just genuine question, with input as to why you chose that.

I say yes... For 2 reasons

1. It encourages confrontation between squads, which, IMHO, is the primary point of this game

2. People who are not familiar with an act control squad will not run them for fear of only getting 1 point. ( as they are generally the ones who take the longest)

This. So much this.

Ehh, yeah, I guess I just over looked the if you collect 200 before 4 rounds thing.

I guess I figured that would be covered by the previous rule that if you collect 200 you get a3 point victory?

I'm just seeing how everyon else feels about the situation.

I'm not screaming for a rule change by any means, just seeing how the community feels about tis subject.

Sorry, this has to be judge's discretion. There simply isn't a number of rounds that would always indicate intentional slow play, particularly slow play on the winner's part. Unfortunately, it's really hard to cut down on slow play as it happens, because people tend to be reluctant to call a judge over (I'm as guilty of that as anyone, although I have asked opponents to speed up a few times). So that leaves us with reports after the fact, where the (typically) losing player, after thinking the game over, decides that maybe their opponent was stalling. With only the recollections of the two players involved, there's simply no way to determine what happened, and no recourse even if something unfair went on.

To my mind, the more relevant question is: were both players actively trying to win (scoring gambit, killing pieces, attempting to get to the build total) throughout the game? If they were, even if they only got through four or five rounds, I don't think you can call that slow play. If one was but the other refused to engage or perform any other action aimed at working toward the build total, thereby making it impossible for the first player to get the 3-point win, that might well be a case of slow play, no matter how many rounds they got through in the hour.

I think the issue is that people are only trying to be ahead at the end of an hour rather then hit the build total. I do not think we can do anything more to hurt the people who are ahead after an hour other than not letting them call it a win even though it counts as one. ;)

I have been an advocate of New Zealand's 3-2-1 scoring system since I first heard of it and have been vocal about it since about the time Kez started promoting his ranking system. I believe that if we tweak the scoring system at all, it should be in this direction. That being said, however, there are those who are saying that no change is necessary. I think the primary consideration in deciding to tweak is how it will be perceived among the newer and perhaps more casual tournament players. Personally I don't see any potential disruptions but any changes should be carefully considered at this point.