I just think you need to be consistent. And since you can't let all the rules you don't think matter slide, you're better off enforcing all the rules.

Rules state you can't use outside electronic devices, good luck trying to enforce me not using my phone during a casual game.

I believe this was said before, but "Fly Casual" works both ways. If someone doesn't want to let you rewind fter a missed trigger, that's their perogative. Your opponent may not be playing in the spirit of flying casual, but using the term "fly casual" to badger or shame your opponent into playing the way you want them to is about as un-casual as can be.

You promote flying casual by providing a good example of a respectful play environment, not by enforcing your view on others.

I find it mildly amusing just how much stress and frustration the phrase "Fly Casual" can engender

As to the original post, I may have (okay, probably would have) let the guy take the Target Lock action. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for ParaGoomba Slayer to have said no the request; I think the opponents response was unwarranted in that case.

Just because I have an easy going approach to the game doesn't mean I get to expect that my opponent does the same, nor does it justify me being rude to them if they don't fit in with my expectation of what casual play is.

how few people show up to the newly founded Thursday X Wing $5 tournament at this venue

For me this issue boils down to this line of your post. In this case the context says that this is still absolutely a casual setting because a $5 tourney isn't a serious competition and is typically to raise a little bit of coin to cover some minimal prize support or something. In other words, it's about fun.

One thing I've learned over the years is that by taking a laid back approach to things (even in a competitive tournament setting which this really doesn't qualify as) you are increasing the chances of having a mutually enjoyable experience for all parties.

The moment you try and take things very strictly and don't allow a newer player in this case a little latitude is the moment you lose part of the fun. There are ways to approach it from a teaching standpoint. Because let's be honest, if it's an experienced player they aren't going to forget their action 95% of the time. If you were playing against an experienced player they absolutely would have taken the action at the appropriate time so what have you lost by reminding them to take their action?

Instead you chose to go the rules lawyer route and call it a missed opportunity and turn the situation negative. That's a classic case of conducting yourself in a manner that makes people not want to come out for $5 fun tournaments.

I tend to believe we all have a certain degree of responsibility for fostering good atmosphere's in local gaming to create a more enjoyable experience for everyone. That is how you grow what could be a really fun regular X-Wing night.

I just think you need to be consistent. And since you can't let all the rules you don't think matter slide, you're better off enforcing all the rules.

Rules state you can't use outside electronic devices, good luck trying to enforce me not using my phone during a casual game.

This isn't true at all. In fact, FFG even has an official dice app legal for all tournaments.

3.) Good. 'Fly casual' is a euphemism for, "I promote sloppy play".

Fly Casual is a euphemism for "be the kind of player you'd want to sit down with again," or even more simply, "don't be a jerk at the table."Fly Casual is not an excuse for sloppy play. Good players should know and follow the rules. But I have never played, watched, or even heard of a completely mistake-free game, and at that point Fly Casual comes into play. How do you handle the situation? Do you do it with grace and empathy, or do you make a bad situation worse by fashioning the mistake into a bludgeon and beating your opponent over the head with it?

2.) Fashioning the mistake into a bludgeon >as the rules allow< is the more effective choice, and anything else would be sloppier.

3.) I tend to remind people of forgotten triggers in casual games because I want to have practice against well flown lists, not ones where 60% of the time Advanced Sensors is forgotten. Hell, I've even instructed my opponent flying Super Dash to take back his boost/barrel roll and to do another more optimum one. But not in a tournament.

4.) Also I'm not a jerk for (almost) enforcing the rules.

He's not so new that he doesn't understand the game. Advanced Sensors is crucial to flying IG lists that utilize it and if that's going to get forgotten that's the IG players fault. That's like forgetting Howlrunner's aura. I'm going to keep my mouth shut as you start doing a red maneuver after the advanced sensors window passes and if you then want to do it when it's too late there is a good chance I'm siding with the rules instead of Fly Sloppy.

But here is the thing. It is not all about you. This is a social game. FFG games in general have attracted a more casual group. You seem to feel that you are constantly under attack for your attitude. At some point, you might have to ask the question, that it might not be them that is the problem.

The Fly Casual mantra, as original adopted, is about keeping the game friendly. And if that means the occaisional forgiveness of sloppy play, that's fine. I mean, we saw a ton of forgiveness in the Nationals final last year.

Thread is TL:DR, besides first page. Looks like it was probably 4 pages of flame war anyways.

My take:

I've been a rule enforcer at one of the stores I started playing at, since there were a number of rule misunderstandings I encountered. It's a pretty casual group... When I see someone slip up with a rule, I delicately phrase it in a question, or ask the TO to "confirm" or "check on" the rule, so it's not like "NAH U CANT DO THAT BRUH." Keeps the atmosphere friendly.

As for action/ability slip-ups, for the most part we accept that if you missed it, it's done with. While facing an inexperienced Aggressor player, I drove one of his ships off the map, and the other onto an asteroid because he made stressed red moves twice in the same game. He was totally fine with it, because we both knew the rules. And frankly, when I apologized as I scooted his ship into oblivion, he told me not to be sorry, it's the rules. So it's nice when folks get it.

On the other hand, I totally understand the "militant casual" opponent, as my brother epitomizes it. I'm not surprised as he's the most fervently opinionated person I know, and an ex-D1 college football player. He's obscenely competitive. He absolutely plays the shaming/guilting card when he misses an action or something, claiming "YOU'RE the one who knows these ships and cards," as if it's my job to remind him how to beat me. And yes, this type of player quickly turns the game toxic.

As a general rule of thumb, if someone slips up and misses an action etc. by just a few seconds, it's "I'll give you this one, but no more freebies/reminders." However, if it's real late game and it's a potentially game-changing mistake (e.g.: forgot to take a free focus on half-dead Guri and it's halfway through the combat phase), I'll say "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that at this point" or something along those lines. So it's gotta be contextual a bit, where it maintains the spirit of the game without ruining the integrity of the game. So in reality, opponents like my brother will still get pissy and mad because that's just just their nature. They know they messed up, and they can't accept it with grace. In those situations, you just have to stand your ground, without stooping to their level by getting angry back. If it's a tournament situation and the TO is on your side, you just tell those guys "tough luck." If it's a casual scene, just walk away if they aren't gonna chill.

I really don't get the being shamed into stuff thing, if you've done nothing wrong nothing the other guy says should make you feel bad.

If someone is being a whiney git or acting like a kid call em out on it don't cave.

Playing against rules lawyers isn't fun, playing against WaaC players isn't fun but neither is playing against manipulative people they all suck the fun out of a game.

It is at the end of the day a game the point is to have fun not to win, if you can't win and lose with equal grace you shouldn't play.

In the OP's scenario, neither player is Flying Casual, although the OP is closest to doing so.

Trying to stop the target lock in a fairly innocous situation like that (as opposed to pointing it out on the first instance) was a bit excessive in my personal opinion, however, were I playing with the OP I'd take the ruling that I can't perform the action. As the opponent he sets the lenience level for me.

The other player (as described, we only have the OP's side) expected lenience and implied the other player should give it. This is also not Flying Casual.

Flying Casual is mostly attitude. Try to be lenient with your opponent (at least on the first instance) where it makes no real difference or is completely obvious (Advanced Cloaking Device or Ysanne Isard sort of thing), expect no lenience yourself. The player who expects to be allowed takebacks/lenience is worse than the player who refuses them.

But here is the thing. It is not all about you. This is a social game. FFG games in general have attracted a more casual group. You seem to feel that you are constantly under attack for your attitude. At some point, you might have to ask the question, that it might not be them that is the problem.

The Fly Casual mantra, as original adopted, is about keeping the game friendly. And if that means the occaisional forgiveness of sloppy play, that's fine. I mean, we saw a ton of forgiveness in the Nationals final last year.

You're right, it's not all about yourself. Hence why the 'militant' casual's attitude was inappropriate.

But here is the thing. It is not all about you. This is a social game. FFG games in general have attracted a more casual group. You seem to feel that you are constantly under attack for your attitude. At some point, you might have to ask the question, that it might not be them that is the problem.

The Fly Casual mantra, as original adopted, is about keeping the game friendly. And if that means the occaisional forgiveness of sloppy play, that's fine. I mean, we saw a ton of forgiveness in the Nationals final last year.

It also doesn't necessarily even mean forgiveness. There are ways to draw a boundary that come across as constructive rather than shutting your opponent down.

Lmao at no you can't take a target lock because you forgot advanced sensors but hey can I go ahead and fire with my ship that I forgot to shoot with.

I look at a tournament this way

Its a test of skill

You enter and see how well you can do. Doing so includes remembering important decisions such as actions, movement etc etc.

I don't know why some want to have someone hold their hands.

If it's a new player that is understandable in a sense

Even though I say I wouldn't allow someone a missed opportunity, during the regional an opponent forgot to recloak.

I offered him the opportunity and he refused, so my hat off to him.

Lmao at no you can't take a target lock because you forgot advanced sensors but hey can I go ahead and fire with my ship that I forgot to shoot with.

If he would have denied me the ability to shoot with my Black Squadron that would have been well within his rights and I would not have expected to be able to do it and would not have said, "Oh, we're playing /that/ way. This is a casual tournament and it's not like it's relevant whether or not the PS 4 TIE Fighter shoots last" in a pissed off tone and then when the Black Squadron blanked out on attack because my opponent was shamed into allowing me to fire with it because of my emotional manipulation said, "See, you happy? It didn't matter anyways".

Like I said before, when I forget triggers I politely ask and if I'm denied I don't get angry. Hell, that's more fly casual than my militant casual opponent's attitude.

Again unless he pulled a boxcutter on you he wasn't being militant he was being childish.

If you are the type of player to deny your opponent take backs, you should also be that type of player that does not ask for your own take backs. Being the former without being the later is a messed up standard to play with.

Like I said before, when I forget triggers I politely ask and if I'm denied I don't get angry. Hell, that's more fly casual than my militant casual opponent's attitude.

He's not militant unless he hits you.

Come on, winning against people who forget their actions is neither fun, nor a challenge.

Come on, winning against people who forget their actions is neither fun, nor a challenge.

Neither is losing to them.

Come on, winning against people who forget their actions is neither fun, nor a challenge.

Neither is losing to them.

Again unless he pulled a boxcutter on you he wasn't being militant he was being childish.

Uh, no. Militant can merely refer to aggressively pushing an action or agenda, it doesn't necessarily mean violence was involved.

Again unless he pulled a boxcutter on you he wasn't being militant he was being childish.

Yeah please drop that. It does NOT refer specifically to physical assault, and we all understand the word in context.

If you are the type of player to deny your opponent take backs, you should also be that type of player that does not ask for your own take backs. Being the former without being the later is a messed up standard to play with.

This. The OP is being hypocritical. I can see either side of the "fly casual" debate, but when he denies an opponent asking to take a forgotten action and then himself asks all his opponents of he can make a forgotten attack, I see that the OP is just doing all in his power to win, simultaneously not flying casual and not upkeeping the rules.

mil·i·tant (mĭl′ĭ-tənt)

adj.

1. Fighting or warring.

2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

n.

A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mīlitāns, mīlitant-, present participle of mīlitāre, to serve as a soldier; see militate.]

mil′i·tance, mil′i·tan·cy n.

mil′i·tant·ly adv.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

mil•i•tant (ˈmɪl ɪ tənt)

adj.

1. vigorously active, aggressive, and often combative, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

n.

3. a militant person.

4. a person engaged in combat.

[1375–1425; late Middle English < Latin mīlitant-, s. of mīlitāns, present participle of mīlitāre]

mil′i•tan•cy, mil′i•tant•ness, n.

mil′i•tant•ly, adv.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

The person in question was described as angry but that's not the same as being aggressive, if he didn't threaten to escalate the disagreement to violence he was not meeting the requirements for being a militant.

If anything in modern media labelling someone militant is an attempt to shut them up or cast them in a bad light.

We have one side of the story only and it does not support the accusation.