Plain and simple

It's been said ready

If you think playing by the rules is WAAC then you need to give your head a shake

WAAC player is the type of player who will weigh their dice. The will purpusly bump ships, to benifit themselves one way or another

My friends and I play, but we stick to the.rules.

If someone forgot to take an action we just let other take a focus as a default

However in a tournament setting we stay by the rules.

If I know a player is new I'll remind them, but after that they are on their own

Can't play the game for them

I already had a Mara problem in a Vassal game. He'd used her once, it was a half hour later since the pace was glacial, and then I dialed in a red maneuver and he was insisting on picking my maneuver. I was about to just say screw it and quit when some spectators made him relent because he'd never placed any stress on my ship.

Vassal I think can be tricky

The way i look at it.

It's my responsibility to call out things that involves what I'm flying.

Mara jade for example

I know it is easy for people to forget since the cards are usually not in plain view.

In this case he should have been calling it out.

If you remembered on your own and out the stress out, great.

If not it be my responsibility to tell you. Mara jade gave X stress.

Some people think that everyone should remember such things.

I already had a Mara problem in a Vassal game. He'd used her once, it was a half hour later since the pace was glacial, and then I dialed in a red maneuver and he was insisting on picking my maneuver. I was about to just say screw it and quit when some spectators made him relent because he'd never placed any stress on my ship.

this situation is similar to the one discussed further back in the thread where a mandatory effect has been missed and how to resolve it.

if you have yet to move any ships the stress should be added and dials reset accordingly, however if ships have already moved then irreversible progression of the game has occurred and you cant then try to rectify the situation by placing the stress, and forcing dials to be handed to the opponent, probably a good question for Frank.

What this situation does illustrate though is why missed opportunites need to be handled very carefully and that continual take backs will eventually lead to situations as discribed above.

Playing to the rules and ensuring you don't miss triggers prevents all of this discussion in the first place.

Yeah, if it's not something that affects the other player directly and it's obvious, I'm all for letting the other person do it. I don't really want to win on stupid mistakes or the fact that whoever had the 9-skill ship started declaring a target before the other person could interrupt and say Isard does her thing. This was just weird because he was all upset and I'd started moving, and it ceased to be fun, at which point I'm done. I get competitive too and think it's can be fun to be that way, but I've also had people start playing mind games too and that's the point at which I'd rather forfeit than deal with playground dispute bs.

but that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of nazi when I say I would prefer to not play with a WAAC, if I had other options.

That's sorta the point... No one really wants to play with a WAAC type of person. They don't even like playing with those types of people, because that's bound to cause problems.

I'm really puzzled as to how some posters are oblivious to the meaning of the phrase "at all costs". It implies that you will do anything, cheat even, to achieve your goal. So if you aren't meaning to be derogatory I'd suggest not using derogatory terms or phrases. Or just accept that you intend to be derogatory.

That's fine by me; I'm perfectly happy banishing WAAC from general conversation, because it's understood to refer to an outlier form of personality.

But 'competitive' vs. 'casual' doesn't capture the dichotomy of what we're really talking about either, because it suggests that people who play like I do are not competitive, or that Morgan Reid (who gave Paul Heaver some leniency in the final match*) isn't competitive. I think a Rules-as-Written (RaW) vs. take-back-player describes what we are really talking about better.

I'm not going to play a game of shifting goal posts. Where you should allow this or that take-back in this situation, but not in others or whatever. The rules of X-wing are clear and available to both players, nobody knows the rules of this arbitrary take back game. It's an unsuitable situation to expect an opponent to play an environment with unclear expectations. So no take-backs asked for, none given. If you forget something move on and remember it next time.

You're right that there are shifting goal posts and that the enforcement of the rules is arbitrary in the take-back style of play. You're also right that this means that there's greater uncertainty.

What I think you don't understand is that is its virtue not its vice because socializing is the point of the game, rather than the bragging rights of having won. It's a situation in which those who have the upper hand can throw a bone to those who made a clear error. That gift that the one person gives to another is what creates a relational bond between the two players. It also increases the bragging rights of the one who won while being generous, and diminishes the case that the loser can make for the having lost the game due to a lapse, thus detracting from the loss. Conversely, Morgan can say that he put good sportsmanship over being world champion, and Paul can never forget that when he looks at his trophy.

The take-back style of play expands the context of the game. Now, I do realize that many people don't, won't, or can't understand that. That's their loss.

* I think it was Morgan - correct me if I am mistaken.

Casual/Competitive made perfect sense from a FFG ruling perspective. Use whatever you wish tho.

I don't have the time to answer to the rest of the post.

I don't really want to win on stupid mistakes or the fact that whoever had the 9-skill ship started declaring a target before the other person could interrupt and say Isard does her thing.

This is already covered by the rules. You aren't allowed to rush your opponent to get them to miss opportunities, so if your opponent starts shooting with their highest-PS ship before you can use your "start of combat" ability you just say "wait, I'm not done yet" and do your stuff. It only becomes a missed opportunity if you have a reasonable amount of time to do something and fail to do it.

Now, many of you may be thinking that actually the Jaffa Cake is the best biscuit, and while I will allow that it can legitimately be considered a biscuit (it's biscuit size, and you eat it like a biscuit), it doesn't have the repeat scoffability of the Bourbon. Nor does the Chocolate Digestive. Now, the American style Chocolate Chip Cookie is up there, granted, but I'd argue it lacks that je ne sais pas to really make it the best biscuit.

I'm really puzzled as to how some posters are oblivious to the meaning of the phrase "at all costs".

It doesn't actually mean people will cheat. It's from Warhammer, and refers to using a build that is widely acknowledged to be completely broken. (And no, I'm not talking X-wing's allegedly "baby broken" ACD phantom or Fat Falcon. Actual broken.)

I already had a Mara problem in a Vassal game. He'd used her once, it was a half hour later since the pace was glacial, and then I dialed in a red maneuver and he was insisting on picking my maneuver. I was about to just say screw it and quit when some spectators made him relent because he'd never placed any stress on my ship.

Someone insisting on takebacks is the single best reason to not give them.

The take-back style of play expands the context of the game. Now, I do realize that many people don't, won't, or can't understand that. That's their loss.

It may for some people, for others it diminishes the experience greatly. Playing for the sake of competition is not inherently bad or inferior to playing for the sake of socialization. Also playing for the sake of competition and not allowing someone to correct a mistake does not inherently diminish the social aspect of the game.

The take-back style does nothing to inherently expand the game, unless the people playing prefer that style of game play.

Frankly it's more than a bit insulting for you to try to claim that those of us who don't play that way are missing something and losing out on something. Because that means your opinion is somehow inherently and objectively superior to ours.

I had a thought, if there is a need to put a label on the "don't let people take back mistakes" style of gameplay that you see in higher levels of competition, vs the casual "anything goes" style.

We could call it Cutthroat, it's a term used in Cribbage that let you take advantage of someone forgetting something or making a mistake counting their points.

Yes, because "cutthroat" has a much more positive connotation than WAAC...

Yes, because "cutthroat" has a much more positive connotation than WAAC...

to me it means a way to play cribbage or cricket so it's not negative.

I think both terms work. It's silly to suggest that all costs includes shanking your opponent. On the whole, I'd like to have fun, have the other person have fun, and have any wins I get mean something. It's kind of hard for me to imagine feeling like I'd scored some great tactical victory or done anything worthwhile if I won just because a token that should have been there wasn't.

This isn't to say that I'd expect to get take-backs. This is often a judgment call, but there are times when I've refused things people offered. Recently in a Netrunner tournament I forgot he had a card out that meant he won next turn, the guy offered to let me do what I would have done, which would have won me the game instead, but that was on me for not paying attention. Personally, I'd say that's a lot different than a missing focus token or advanced cloaking.

We're all likely to have different ideas of where exactly that cutoff is, but being sensitive to the other player having fun, or at least not having a bad experience, is necessary. That's what's made this game different, and let me see those few bad experiences as an exception. There's never going to be an exact solution for anything that involves dealing with other people, so let's just make the goal goodwill, or, and I feel dirty for saying it and need to go burn a bunch of Chicken Soup for the Soul books in a dark ritual to make up for it, the golden rule. We're not robots, and losing that attitude puts you on the slippery slope to all other sorts of problems. For instance, I also had the decisive game for a tournament (this was Attack Wing) go to roll-off when I should have won outright because my target lock was taken off the board. I'm pretty sure the other guy swept it away. Let's not be like the Attack Wing guys.

I think the answer is simple. If you forget something, feel free to ask your opponent if you can go back and fix it. But at the same time you need to respect what ever they decide. If you forgot to use Ysanne and you opponent doesn't let you the "Fly Casual" player accepts their opponents ruling. If your opponent forget something, the "Fly Casual" player should consider giving their opponent a break, especially if it is the first time or the opponent is a new player.

"Fly Casual" is not something you can impose on you opponent, nor is it permission to play fast and loose with rules. It is something you do because you know at the end of the day even playing in tournaments is about having fun, not necessarily winning.

The whole point of a "Fly Casual" play style is that you don't cause tension.

It's kind of hard for me to imagine feeling like I'd scored some great tactical victory or done anything worthwhile if I won just because a token that should have been there wasn't.

On the other hand, if I won because I forgot a token, and the other guy let me use it anyway. I'd feel like the victory was tainted. It's very much a matter of PoV. That's really my biggest issue with these threads.

It's when someone tries to claim that their way of playing is inherently and objectively superior to some other play style. That people who play more cutthroat, less forgiving, more willing to capitalize on a mistake are doing it wrong, and are bad people for playing that way. Then I have a pretty big problem.

They often throw out strawmen like "well playing that way will drive away new players." As if we play that way when teaching someone the game.

We're all likely to have different ideas of where exactly that cutoff is, but being sensitive to the other player having fun, or at least not having a bad experience, is necessary.

I agree, if I'm playing a random person at the LGS and they seem new, or even to just not take the game real seriously, I'd likely be more willing to allow some takebacks, as long as it doesn't get too bad. Because in those kinds of situations a win may not be that big a deal.

Beating someone who's only goal is to push some ships around the table, roll some dice and get away from the house for a hour or so, just isn't going to mean as much as beating someone who takes the game seriously and is a competitive player themselves. So I'm going to play to their level to a point.

But that also cuts both ways, if someone wants to play a serious game, maybe they're getting ready for a tournament or something, or just want some serious competition, I think the other person has as much responsibility to step up their game as I do to allow them a little leeway.

Frankly it's more than a bit insulting for you to try to claim that those of us who don't play that way are missing something and losing out on something. Because that means your opinion is somehow inherently and objectively superior to ours.

Hm, does playing the indignation card come naturally to you, or did you have to learn how to contort what I was saying? Do you also have a victim card up your sleeve? I know I didn't deal one to you.

It may for some people, for others it diminishes the experience greatly. Playing for the sake of competition is not inherently bad or inferior to playing for the sake of socialization. Also playing for the sake of competition and not allowing someone to correct a mistake does not inherently diminish the social aspect of the game.

The take-back style does nothing to inherently expand the game, unless the people playing prefer that style of game play.

I guess it depends on what it is expanding. You seem to think I meant enjoyment or 'goodness', or something. I was referring to bonding, and - yes - I would assert that the take-back style of play increases the potential for social bonding more than the RaW-style of play. I may be wrong, but I'm not trying to say that you're inferior or anything, or that your style of play is wrong. In terms of the rules, the take-back style of play is literally wrong. Maybe it's also inferior. I don't know, and you're free to do whatever floats your boat.

There are cultures that have thick contexts and thin contexts. In a thin-context culture all you need to know about interaction is explicitly written in the rules. You don't have to be attuned to other people's social cues, and such societies tend to be very legalistic. Relationships are also short-lived and tend to only have one dimension. Thick-context cultures have a lot more that is implicit, and people feel that there are things that are more important than the precise outcomes of specific interactions.

I'm saying that there are many situations or groups in which take-back/thick-context style of may be preferable. I think that when you're playing with an opponent who is new to the game, or new to a group, then you want to be polite and throw them a bone. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, if you want to bond with a person and signal that their enjoyment and your relationship with them is more important to you than the fate of that TIE fighter.

It's kind of hard for me to imagine feeling like I'd scored some great tactical victory or done anything worthwhile if I won just because a token that should have been there wasn't.

On the other hand, if I won because I forgot a token, and the other guy let me use it anyway. I'd feel like the victory was tainted. It's very much a matter of PoV. That's really my biggest issue with these threads.

Exactly. I guess for me if it's one of those automatic things like Ysanne, or like the GenCon winner had, where it was something he was doing every single turn, it's pretty clear cut. If it's something that seems like it involves a degree of decision-making, it's very different. That's kind of why I like the idea of just treating focus as a default action, but that's not a perfect solution either.

As far as the thick/thin bit above, I know that personally I start having a really sh*tty time when I feel like someone is trying to screw with me and that has much more impact than what's on the board. If I've got a choice between letting another damage go through on my Tie and not ruining someone's day, knowing that their perception of what's going on might be very different than mine, I think the choice is pretty clear, yet even then, my interpretation of that is going to have a lot to do with how the interactions with that person have been.

Hm, does playing the indignation card come naturally to you, or did you have to learn how to contort what I was saying?

I didn't feel any need to contort what you said. I took it at face value.

I may be wrong, but I'm not trying to say that you're inferior or anything, or that your style of play is wrong.

That's what you said though. I simply can't see any other way to take this statement.

Now, I do realize that many people don't, won't, or can't understand that. That's their loss.

You are stating that I'm losing out on something, something that clearly you consider valuable. Again I don't know how else to take that, other than a judgment on how I chose to play the game.

I'm saying that there are many situations or groups in which take-back/thick-context style of may be preferable.

And in those situations I'd likely play that way.

Also, if you want to bond with a person and signal that their enjoyment and your relationship with them is more important to you than the fate of that TIE fighter.

But then you go with the judgements again, because apparently playing a bit more strictly and not allowing someone to take back a mistake, means my value of them as a person is less than the value of my toy.

Please explain exactly why playing the game seriously means I can't bond with someone socially. Especially when that person also prefers to take the game fairly seriously and is looking for a good competitive interaction.

I think it's interesting how people like to try and collapse WAAC/RAW/Fly Casual onto a single axis, when they seem very different to me.

You can have a RAW player hand out missed opportunities like candy 9:55pm Halloween candy, or they could take the attitude of "remember it yourself or try again next turn." Either one of those could be a friendly sort, congratulating clever maneuvers and commiserating poor dice, or they could be sour and complain about a bad roll, your hot dice, a move they let you take back/you didn't let them take back for the entire game, etc.

Sometimes sloppy play is due to being unable or unwilling to spend the extra effort to tighten it up, and sometimes it's cover for bumping models to put them into better positions.

Sometimes no takebacks are given because the player doesn't want to give up a single advantage, and sometimes they just don't want to navigate the murky waters of when it becomes too much and stops being a game of x-wing and starts being cowboys and imperials.

Pigeon-holes are great! But we're going to need more of them.

Also, if you want to bond with a person and signal that their enjoyment and your relationship with them is more important to you than the fate of that TIE fighter.

But then you go with the judgements again, because apparently playing a bit more strictly and not allowing someone to take back a mistake, means my value of them as a person is less than the value of my toy.

Please explain exactly why playing the game seriously means I can't bond with someone socially. Especially when that person also prefers to take the game fairly seriously and is looking for a good competitive interaction.

Dude, if you want to read judgement into that, then I can't stop you. I'm starting to think you enjoy the feeling of being indignant, so why should I diminish that for you? If you want, I can try my hand at some authentic insult - would you like that?

If you know how that person likes to play, and that matches yours, then further bonding about how to play the game probably isn't necessary. Go, have fun. You certainly don't need me to comment on it.

Oh, wait, NO!! You're a despicable person for playing that way. Not only despicable, but morally depraved. You should feel ashamed!

(There, did that give you some really good indignation, or do I need to up my game?)

Oh, wait, NO!! You're a despicable person for playing that way. Not only despicable, but morally depraved. You should feel ashamed!

That's been said around here more than once, if not in so many words, or perhaps more.

But again, I'm not sure how else to take those statements of yours. If you don't want people to read judgement into something, then don't use such judgemental language.

I mean if I value my Tie Fighter more than "their enjoyment and your relationship with them" I just don't see any way to take that other than as some sort of moral judgement on your part. As if my desire to win automatically excludes any sort of respect for the other person or what they want.

If I'm simply misunderstanding then I would be happy to read what ever explanation you have for what you meant.

Oh, wait, NO!! You're a despicable person for playing that way. Not only despicable, but morally depraved. You should feel ashamed!

That's been said around here more than once, if not in so many words, or perhaps more.

But again, I'm not sure how else to take those statements of yours. If you don't want people to read judgement into something, then don't use such judgemental language.

I mean if I value my Tie Fighter more than "their enjoyment and your relationship with them" I just don't see any way to take that other than as some sort of moral judgement on your part. As if my desire to win automatically excludes any sort of respect for the other person or what they want.

If I'm simply misunderstanding then I would be happy to read what ever explanation you have for what you meant.

I can't speak to what others have said to you, or how you've interpreted them. I can best suggest that you read what I am writing without the presumption that I'm judging, but merely stating my preferences. If you're having trouble discerning the difference, then perhaps you care too much about what I think.

Sure, I think that my understanding of 'fly casual' is beneficial for bonding a group. In order to prepare that group for tournaments, they should allow people to enjoy the game first by having it be the bonding experience, and then back off the taking back for a more RAW style of play.

Sure, there are groups who can go RAW right away, but I'd guess that those groups are already bonded and don't need the bonding of 'fly casual'.

The take-back style of play expands the context of the game. Now, I do realize that many people don't, won't, or can't understand that. That's their loss.

When you say this, are you aware that i can say pretty much the same thing about playing the game competitively for a more in depth approach, diving in, having tactics and list building conversations and getting bonds from finding good players to play with where there is a feeling of group accomplishment whenever somebody wins at a tournament.

Yes, take-backs is your preference, we already know it, but this post i am quoting stops being stating your opinion and starts being judgemental the moment you put down a "can't, won't, their loss.". You are implying stupidity, defective behaviour or outright ignorance, when in reality is just a different approach to the enjoyment of the hobby.

You didn't mean that ? Instead of putting blame on the reader, fix what you wrote. As i am sure you are aware, it's the common rule to use a "i may not have explained myself well enough" to stop confrontational conversations where a unintended possible missread could had happened.

Imagine if now, i said, "but i think you just don't, won't, can't understand what truly is playing this game cometitively. It's your loss."

As its writing, i am implying your inability, your stubborness or ignorance on the subject. Directly. Maybe my english is that bad, but if i said it on my language it would sound judgemental and condescending.