Just be glad it wasn't your finger. 

Had a great trade with fightwookies. Love mah cards!

umm for B the answer is no. Unless you're playing mirror matches where your IG-88 hits your opponent's IG-88, you cannot play opportunistic to give your IG-88 3MP when it (IG-88) suffers dmg
 
IG-88 is not hostile to itself and the trigger for it is "after a hostile figure", not just "a figure"

It's not whether it is during attackers activation. It is whether it is during DEFENDERS activation (which i think is the most "classic" way of playing parting blow). If you play On the Lam during your (defenders) activation (whether it is because of parting blow, GIA's Parting Shot , Jyn interrupt etc.) it just lets you perform a move, which adds points to your pool). In any other situation (attackers activation or out of activation effects, you can run (BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE - oohh, wait.. actually you can hide, and that's what you will do in most cases ;D :D)
 
 
  Hi Greg,   1) This interpretation of Provoke is interesting. Let me think about that one for a while. If it’s relevant for the GenCon tournament let me know today or come see me before the event (I’ll be Marshal).   2) Jedi Luke cannot spend movement points during a Heroic attack. This interaction cannot be satisfactorily solved with the strict definition of “action” provided in the written rules. Movement points (and other timing issues, specifically interrupting abilities) are also a known point of confusion that I would like to clarify further and more comprehensively in the future. For now: Luke cannot spend movement points during a Heroic attack. Luke does not Bleed after performing a Heroic attack.   3)Strangely, when played during your own activation, On the Lam would simply pool your movement points. They are not gained outside your activation or as part of a special action, so there is no opportunity to spend them as an interrupt.   Hope that helps!  
Todd Michlitsch
Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
tmichlitsch@fantasyflightgames.com    

The awesomesauce is that he could legally play the card and it would do him no good at all.  lolz

Those movement points can be spend without requiring a movement action.
its actually a critical Rebel ability that when used right will optimise their chances of winning missions.
a Rebel can strain twice for 2mp, spend them and attack twice in one turn if required.

I'm absolutely with you that we should be accepting of players regardless, especially if they're new.  To be honest the worst I'd ever give someone would be a single gentle reminder, and it would take quite a long series of delays before I would do even that.
But analysis paralysis (AP) is a thing, and it's just as un-fun to play against in this game as it is in every other board game where decisions have to be made.  And just like in those other board games, you can sometimes tell by the situation whether someone is in "try to consider all the potential outcomes of a difficult choice" mode (ok by me) or "waver back and forth between two or three options" mode (nothing's changing, just pick one already!).
To be honest I'm probably bringing over most of my frustrations (minor as they are) from sitting through waiting for AP players in other games.  And really my post is not directed at newer players so much as at players who do know what they are doing but still take a long time.  I just think it's worth keeping in mind that the whole time you're sitting there thinking, the other person is often sitting there waiting.  And maybe that's okay with you - it doesn't make you a bad person (this is a competitive game after all) but it does make you less fun to play against .
So if you're someone who regularly plays games that don't get to round three, maybe it's worth just "thinking about what you're thinking about" sometime.  Are you really using all of that time efficiently, considering different options?  Or are you just going around and around in your own head?
 
 

I'll pile on a bit here.  When I'm running the imperial side, I tend to stick to these as general rules:
Always try to go after the FIRST rebel to activate with everything you have.  Then focus on that guy till he's flipped. That figure will not have the option to rest directly after taking a beating (because it's already activated), and it will be fairly difficult for that player to use that figure practically if you focus them down (they'll have to spend a lot of time resting them just to keep them upright). Use stun, bleed and weaken as often as you can to remove actions and slow the rebels down. If you can, pile swarms of figures into hallways in front of objective doors or on top of objective tokens/terminals.  This will force the rebels to chew completely through you in order to interact with the objective. Don't always feel like you have to spend every point of threat.  Be strategic about deployments - if you can wait one round, even if the board is clear, to deploy 2 full groups of troopers, it's better than deploying a single officer who will immediately die and only getting 1 of those trooper sets out instead... Those first 2 are the most important (for me).  An IP who focuses one one hero at a time is hard to beat...

I'll pile on a bit here.  When I'm running the imperial side, I tend to stick to these as general rules:
Always try to go after the FIRST rebel to activate with everything you have.  Then focus on that guy till he's flipped. That figure will not have the option to rest directly after taking a beating (because it's already activated), and it will be fairly difficult for that player to use that figure practically if you focus them down (they'll have to spend a lot of time resting them just to keep them upright). Use stun, bleed and weaken as often as you can to remove actions and slow the rebels down. If you can, pile swarms of figures into hallways in front of objective doors or on top of objective tokens/terminals.  This will force the rebels to chew completely through you in order to interact with the objective. Don't always feel like you have to spend every point of threat.  Be strategic about deployments - if you can wait one round, even if the board is clear, to deploy 2 full groups of troopers, it's better than deploying a single officer who will immediately die and only getting 1 of those trooper sets out instead... Those first 2 are the most important (for me).  An IP who focuses one one hero at a time is hard to beat...

Sorry, but Hired Guns are not subpar. They don't deal any damage, but they easily make their points back in objectives.

Ah, the "Trust your feelings" method of clock awareness.
You've taken your first step towards a larger playstyle.

When I started playing the game it wasn’t crazy to cut it close when it came to getting to round 3. I can’t say I really know at worlds last year, for example, how many of my games went 4 rounds... usually by that time in the game I’ve stopped paying attention. One solid year into competitive skirmish and I can kinda “feel” when an activation is taking too long and I don’t have too much anxiety about a friendly nudge to my opponent (I have rarely felt like it was needed). I would also expect and appreciate a friendly comment from an opponent who feels I am taking too long (which hasn’t often occurred in a competitive game). In general, I expect the vast majority of games to be finished or a foregone conclusion by round 3. I think you are in for some frustration if you are counting for 4 rounds out of every game. Like I said though my focus is more on an appropriate feel to the situations at hand and less on the number of rounds played. We can all tell if someone is just a slow player by nature and hopefully adjust strategy accordingly. 
With the diversity of the meta right now there may be more of an issue coming up with this though. The stout empire trooper lists seem to really benefit from more rounds being played. Tension also exists when you know your list really well but you need some time to try and predict your opponents’ movements especially if you haven’t seen their list before. Should we expect that everyone is competent with the strategy of every list immediately upon viewing it? Keep in mind that players who spend more time studying the game and practicing can have the tendency to expect their opponent to play faster than they are comfortable with. Without a chess clock it gets complicated.

tl;dr?
My thoughts sum up to:
There are lots of reasons for someone to take time in a competitive IA match. "Stalling" is hard to prove, even in clear cases. So don't beat 'em; join 'em. Make a list of things you want to use your time for, so you're consistently bringing your best game. Half that time is yours, after all, so use it.
Edit: One final "trick" from chess is to use your opponent's "thinking time" for your own as well. Pay attention to your own mental exertion: do you need to let your mind drift for a minute so you can come back focused, or do you play better when you stay hunkered down, and while they're holding still, you're thinking ahead to your next two or three moves?
 
The other obvious "ask" is to call a TO and say, "I can't prove slow play, but my opponent is taking time and we're clearly at a point where continuing to a 4th round will matter: can we assume that so that neither of us rushes nor stalls these last few activations of round 3?"

The most important thing missing from the Learn to Play / campaign rules, is a suggestion that you have a talk with your Rebel players before the die has been cast, aligning your expectations to the campaign.

Are they looking for a thinky game with heavy strategising of every choice and an opponent Imperial Player, that pulls no punches? Or would they prefer an Imperial Player more akin to a gamemaster in a roleplaying game - the custodian of a fun experience, that might challenge them, but never enough to break them, not really playing to "win" in the traditional sense?

Rules-wise, this is a really helpful thread: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1319188/what-are-some-crazy-or-common-rule-breaking-mistak
You'll probably have most of the rules already from skirmish, but there are a few small changes that can trip you up.  The big things IMO are to look up the difference between "threat" and "threat level" and to remember a few extra abilities that all heroes have (e.g. they can spend up to two strain to gain that many movement points; they can always spend a single surge from any attack to recover a single strain; any time you're told to recover strain but you have none, you recover that amount of damage instead)
Also, remind your rebels that it's not generally a great idea to open doors with their last hero's activation - imperial troops often spawn, and that's a bad thing if all of the heroes have already activated.  With that said, they should learn this on their own in the first mission .
 
As for house rules, I don't really use too many.  The one thing I like to do is to use the errata'd characters for allies/open groups but the non-errata'd characters for things that were spawned by the mission.  So for example if the mission says to start with royal guards, rebel sabs, Han Solo or IG-88 on the board then I use their original cards since that's what the mission was designed and balanced around.  But if the rebels earn Han Solo as an ally or if the Imperial earns Iggy as a villain, I'll let them bring them in as though they had their skirmish upgrade card (including the reduced cost).  This makes earning the allies and villains feel more "worth it", since otherwise a min/maxing player would never want to bring in any of the cool figures that they had earned.
Also, some people like to try to prevent "snowballing" by giving both sides the extra XP if they've lost two or more story missions in a row.  You might want to see how it goes and implement this if one side starts off at a huge advantage.
 
Edit: Also, in post-Jabba campaigns there's a rule that the imperial can only hold up to four agenda cards at once (to prevent the imperial from just saving them all up for the finale).  This is probably a good rule for any campaign.  And also also, if you are using expansion content for the weapon/item purchase decks then the new rule is to put half of the available items up for sale instead of the limit of 6 that is called out in the core rule book.

Absolutely - you have to 'feel' it out, but I think some general rules apply to every game, even the top table late tourney games:
You should be shooting for a 4th round If you or your opponent are consistently taking longer than 2 minutes to make a decision, you need to speed it up That second one would be what I personally would use if I was dealing with a slow opponent.  The first time, I'd mention that we need to speed things up if we want to see a round 4.  After that one, I'd call a TO to observe, just to be safe.
Too many times, players are just passive aggressive (instead of working out issues) and they compound that by not calling on a judge early enough for the judge to effect change...
Anyway, yeah - friendly conversation here fellas...

Yeah, that's why I brought this up (because besides it happening several times to others, it almost happened to me - we started round 3 with 10 seconds to spare on the clock).  I've seen other threads talking about playing to the clock, etc.  I just wanted a few hard and fast rules of thumb to help me foresee the time stretch.
Personally, also, I tend to apologize when I'm taking a while to decide something - and I really try to read my opponent for cues of frustration, etc.  Not that those should change my decisions, but really - at this level, I don't think round 4 is too much to expect...

Was going to quote more... but just going to give a general reply. 
Ugnaughts aren't just good on one mission on one map. They are very good on all the missions and maps. They are essentially unbeatable on Raining Freight. 
Imaging this situation- round one Worlds, you've been months getting geared up and tested for Worlds- round one- Nal Hutta- Raining Freight- and you're playing against Ugnaughts. Unless you are playing Ugnaughts as well, it's an autoloss. 
There should not be an auto loss on any map vs any even semi-competitive list. 

I guess it's worth bringing up, too, that some of this does depend on the list.  A player running 5 activations of big rebel heroes is naturally going to play faster than someone running a big trooper swarm, and that's ok.  I'm not even worried about what round we get to so much as I am about having to sit and stare blankly at the board while someone ponders every tiny move.

Yeah, that's why I brought this up (because besides it happening several times to others, it almost happened to me - we started round 3 with 10 seconds to spare on the clock).  I've seen other threads talking about playing to the clock, etc.  I just wanted a few hard and fast rules of thumb to help me foresee the time stretch.
Personally, also, I tend to apologize when I'm taking a while to decide something - and I really try to read my opponent for cues of frustration, etc.  Not that those should change my decisions, but really - at this level, I don't think round 4 is too much to expect...

There are kind of two separate issues here: the slow player and the deliberate slow play.  I think most all players are probably opposed to deliberate stalling, but there's not much that we can do to affect that beyond calling the TO when we suspect something.  Unfortunately this is pretty much always going to lead to negative feelings on one or both sides, but it is what it is.  If somebody is going to cheat then that's on them and there's not much we can do to keep a positive play experience at that point.
A generally slow player is a different thing - it's not at all malicious - but to be honest I find this kind of annoying as well.  I mean yeah, the odd time there's going to be a situation that warrants some real thought and that's not what I'm talking about.  But if someone's taking a few minutes per move on a consistent basis, they're either taking into account way more information that I do or they're just running through the same arguments in their head over and over and over.  If it's the former, well... power to you I guess .  But if it's the latter, it might help to try to be conscious of this.  Say to yourself "well I'm either doing X or Y, I've already narrowed down the pros and cons, it's time to pick one".  Maybe this doesn't come naturally to AP-prone people, but it would sure help make the games you're playing more enjoyable for your opponent.
 
Edit:  And if you're someone who has been politely reminded about slow play by your opponent a few times (and assuming you're not doing it to intentionally stall) it might be worth a bit of introspection.  Ask yourself: if there were a chess clock, would you be able to play faster?  If the answer is yes, then why not try just... playing faster? 
 

My answer to this is "it depends". At high levels where players have practiced a lot, it should be expected that during the first round you have your opening moves pretty well mapped out and should be taking less than a minute per entire unit activation. It's in the later rounds that things get more tricky. In round 2, a lot of players will have a pretty good idea of what units to attack and what objectives to try for. However, once a large melee has been joined it can be more difficult to decide what is the best allocation of resources. At the end of round 2 and moving into round 3, expect activations to start taking longer. 
I think a good rule of thumb is to call the judge if your opponent is taking way too long to make pretty obvious moves on a consistent basis. The first time or two it can be given the benefit of the doubt what is the obvious move to you is not the obvious move to your opponent, but if it happens a lot you should call a judge. Usually they will speed up their play as soon as somebody else is watching.
This whole thread will have a high likelihood of becoming contentious, so I ask that everybody respect each other's opinions and just generally be nice.

That's pretty much a blow-by-blow description of my one and only negative play experience in Imperial Assault.  In the final of my first tournament, I killed off my opponent's best combat figures early in round two (the rest of his list was a bunch of assorted low cost support and objective grabbers).  He got really salty at this point, and from then on anytime I paused to look at the board even for a few seconds he would say things like "well it's already over, I don't know why you're even bothering to think about it".  The sighing, the mumbling - everything pretty much just like you're describing it.  This continued until I made a really dumb positioning mistake with my Luke, allowing him to get a shot off with his one remaining weequay to bring him one point into the lead just as time was expiring.
I'm not absolving myself of the blame for my mistake - it was something that I should have seen coming.  It was also my first tourney, and who knows, maybe I would have made the same blunder had he been a great opponent.  But I just felt rushed and under pressure the whole game, and whether or not it really had an effect on my decisions it certainly felt like it did at the time.
I haven't come up against that player again, but I expect I might soon as we've got our local regionals coming up this weekend.  If I get matched up with him I'm going to try to go into it with an open mind and give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm also going to make it a point to take my time and to not let my foot off the gas if things start to go my way.
I think the biggest thing, though, is that this guy probably didn't even know that I perceived him as a bit of a jerk and just thought that he was letting off steam.  And I'm sure he's not a bad guy at all.  Really I think that it might do us all a bit of good to remember that there's a difference between a bit of self-deprecating humour and being sore to the point that it's uncomfortable for our opponents, and that line might be tough to see if we're mad at ourselves.  

I played in this same tournament and wanted to add my two cents on a different issue but related in terms of etiquette. 
The first round I lost when after thinking I had Vader killed; Stealth Tactics was played and a dodge was rolled. Vader then sliced IG-88 in twain. A 28 POINT SWING in mere moments! I threw my hands in the air, sighed and moved on. A think this reaction was natural but I tried to stifle it and get on with the game. 
Several games later, however, I had taken out a high-cost figure who had been left exposed early in a match. My opponent was understandably upset but was cursing his luck with such ferocity that I found myself feeling extremely guilty for taking out the figure. It was really distracting with the sighing, venting and even the tossing of tokens as if all else were futile in life. To both of our surprises his still edged a victory by a few points, but I really hated that I felt so guarded and cautious for the rest of the match and I wonder if it affected my play. 
The short of it is:  I'm wondering if another's player's conduct has made you feel so cautious that you were not attentive to the game itself.

This subject tended to rear its head much more often during those dark times of the Intentionally Draw and a consideration at the time - at least in some of the FFG games - were that you should not discuss anything before having called over a judge to ensure perfect transparency. I think that is a pretty good rule of thumb, still, if you want to concede and if your opponent stands to gain enough of a benefit from it to progress in the tournament.

I'm not saying this as comment or a judgement call on what should or shouldn't have been done in this situation - I don't think anyone not there can do that here (and those that were there, probably shouldn't settle that here) - but as a general take-away from the discussion.