Right, but you seem to be saying that if he tries to enforce the rules in a fun tournament, he's made a choice that "isn't friendly and fun," which I don't agree with at all. If I'm a jerk about the rules and revel in my opponent's misfortune, yeah, that's a jerk move. But if I'm taking a helpful and constructive attitude when I say, "No, you have to perform that action before you revealed your dial," I don't see how I'm forever turning that person off of playing the game.

Exactly DailyRich...

Once again Fly Casual isn't about what you do, but rather the attitude you have. You can enforce the rules and fly casual. You can also be a WAAC jerk, and expect people to let you fix every mistake you make.

The whole point of Fly Casual was trying to make X-Wing different then what you see at a stereotypical 40k tournament.

My problem with Fly Casual is it seems too many people want to use it as a hammer rather than an attitude.

My problem is some people use it as an excuse to attack casuals while playing the victim.

My opponent in this situation was clearly the one with the more aggressive attitude.

One can go about winning at all costs with a casual attitude, and as demonstrated in this thread, one can be a 'militant' casual. Let me also add that there is a false dichotomy between 'playing for fun' and 'playing to win'. It's generally more fun to play well and win than not win.

Right, but you seem to be saying that if he tries to enforce the rules in a fun tournament, he's made a choice that "isn't friendly and fun," which I don't agree with at all. If I'm a jerk about the rules and revel in my opponent's misfortune, yeah, that's a jerk move. But if I'm taking a helpful and constructive attitude when I say, "No, you have to perform that action before you revealed your dial," I don't see how I'm forever turning that person off of playing the game.

Actually my comments are specifically based upon the context the OP provided. I would never dream of stating that if you enforce the rules in a tournament that you aren't being friendly and fun. The quote that the OP provided from his opponent suggests it probably could have been handled better in that specific fun tournament atmosphere specifically with a new player.

With a tournament (fun or competitive) I'm probably bringing some sort of strong list. If I am playing a newbie with my competitive list then I am probably winning that game the overwhelming majority of the time. In that context you have plenty of opportunities to teach and keep things light while utterly destroying them. When is it critical that you deny your newbie opponent their action because they missed the timing window in that setting? Why is your game that close? Does it matter any way?

I can't help but feel there is some disconnect between the context as perceived by the 2 of us.

Let me also add that there is a false dichotomy between 'playing for fun' and 'playing to win'. It's generally more fun to play well and win than not win.

PRECISELY.

Like I said, most of you need to stop talking about "this way or that way" or "two sides of a coin." It's not black and white. You can have fun playing regardless of outcome, but ask anyone and they're not gonna tell you it's more fun to lose. You can be a cool guy about rule or timing slip-ups while still following the rules. Situational. Contextual. Dependent. These are words to consider when discussing what's reasonable or not regarding mistakes. And the original point of this thread is, I think, that if an opponent is not going to be graceful or understanding about respecting the rules in tournament play, there's no reason to be lenient with them.

Again, who is flying more casual?

The player who doesn't allow his opponent to perform missed triggers and doesn't get angry when he's not allowed to perform his own missed triggers,

or,

the player who gets angry and/or won't play with someone again because they expect their own mistakes to be corrected by their opponent when the rules state that he's not obligated to?

As that question is posed, the first player.

However, when the first player then goes and starts a thread describing his opponent as a militant, possibly misrepresents them and accuses a player who (at least according to the description) was simply shocked at being called up on something so minor of trying to "shame" him into compliance, that's a different story.

My problem with Fly Casual is it seems too many people want to use it as a hammer rather than an attitude.

My problem is some people use it as an excuse to attack casuals while playing the victim.

My opponent in this situation was clearly the one with the more aggressive attitude.

One can go about winning at all costs with a casual attitude, and as demonstrated in this thread, one can be a 'militant' casual. Let me also add that there is a false dichotomy between 'playing for fun' and 'playing to win'. It's generally more fun to play well and win than not win.

Did he threaten you? Because if not then no he wasn't aggressive he was angry that's not the same at all and your pointing out the exact thing I mentioned your the one who made a thread moaning about the casual while portraying yourself as the injured party.

What's more when you asked him for the same favour he didn't say no so where you get of calling him WaaC eludes me, if he were WaaC he'd of sneered at you and said no while rubbing your face in it.

I know people that only enjoy winning in fact I know two max a WaaC powergamer that's thrown board games around when losing and Sam who'll hit himself when he makes a mistake, you can't just have a fun game with either of them.

I know people that win or lose you'll enjoy playing against them.

People that only get fun from winning are not really fun to face, losing gracefully is every bit as important as winning gracefully and WaaC players tend not to do either well.

None of this sounds very casual to me.

At the end of the day, I think the phantom "Militant Casual" (and holy heck, that terms gets a LOT of play on these forums - might be telling?) is just a WAAC player in sheep's clothing.

The rules don't necessitate that I treat someone how they want to be treated, just that I treat them in accordance with the rules of the game.

Right. The rules don't say that you have to be nice to your opponent. That's up to you.

But if you don't want to be nice to your opponent, if you want to be hyper competitive and cut-throat in a game of plastic toy spaceships, where the prizes are other bits of plastic and cardboard, well, that says a lot about a person, don't you think?

My problem with Fly Casual is it seems too many people want to use it as a hammer rather than an attitude.

My problem is that people keep trying to define what fly casual means.

It really just means be cool to each other. Whatever 'be cool' means, whatever 'fly casual' means, whatever 'be awesome' means, just do that. If you don't think your being cool to your opponent, if you don't feel like you're being casual and relaxed about the game, then you're probably taking it too seriously.

My problem with Fly Casual is it seems too many people want to use it as a hammer rather than an attitude.

My problem is that people keep trying to define what fly casual means.

It really just means be cool to each other. Whatever 'be cool' means, whatever 'fly casual' means, whatever 'be awesome' means, just do that. If you don't think your being cool to your opponent, if you don't feel like you're being casual and relaxed about the game, then you're probably taking it too seriously.

I think it's okay to fly stressed red maneuver ships off the board.

This is a just a terrible rule, generally speaking, for X-Wing. Seriously, think about it:

Is setting a red maneuver (while stressed) a mistake of tactics? Of course it isn't.

It's a mistake, usually, of vision ("I didn't see the stress token"), or it's a mistake of fatigue ("Just zoned out"), or it's a mistake of inexperience ("I didn't know that rule").

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

Here's how it should be handled:

When a red maneuver is set, and the ship is stressed (or it acquires stress after the dial is set, which can happen!), the dial should be automatically set to the shortest straight green maneuver.

There are not many "just plain terrible" rules in X-Wing, but the "red-while-stressed" rule is just about the stupidest.

I think it's okay to fly stressed red maneuver ships off the board.

This is a just a terrible rule, generally speaking, for X-Wing. Seriously, think about it:

Is setting a red maneuver (while stressed) a mistake of tactics? Of course it isn't.

It's a mistake, usually, of vision ("I didn't see the stress token"), or it's a mistake of fatigue ("Just zoned out"), or it's a mistake of inexperience ("I didn't know that rule").

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

Here's how it should be handled:

When a red maneuver is set, and the ship is stressed (or it acquires stress after the dial is set, which can happen!), the dial should be automatically set to the shortest straight green maneuver.

There are not many "just plain terrible" rules in X-Wing, but the "red-while-stressed" rule is just about the stupidest.

I usually talk the situation over with my opponent. As much as I want to take the opportunity to take a lead towards the victory., I feel that I am cheating myself in that I'm making it too easy for myself. I didn't truly win. Did I win because I played better? Or because he made a mistake that was in my favor? This reasoning has haunted me until I just let him choose a different maneuver so that I have a battle against an opponent who was 100%.

Last time this happened to me I lost in the end. But the match was so close that I didn't feel bad about it. In the end I learned a lot. At the same time though, I would not be bothered in the least if I made the same mistake and my opponent flew my ship off the table. I'd be mad, but at myself. One of those players who looks frustrated but never takes it out on his opponents. But that's my fault, in the end it's about learning from mistakes and playing with an accomidating and respectful attitude.

Respect your opponent at all times, and he will respect you back. This is the essence of "Fly Casual".

I think it's okay to fly stressed red maneuver ships off the board.

This is a just a terrible rule, generally speaking, for X-Wing. Seriously, think about it:

Is setting a red maneuver (while stressed) a mistake of tactics? Of course it isn't.

It's a mistake, usually, of vision ("I didn't see the stress token"), or it's a mistake of fatigue ("Just zoned out"), or it's a mistake of inexperience ("I didn't know that rule").

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

Here's how it should be handled:

When a red maneuver is set, and the ship is stressed (or it acquires stress after the dial is set, which can happen!), the dial should be automatically set to the shortest straight green maneuver.

There are not many "just plain terrible" rules in X-Wing, but the "red-while-stressed" rule is just about the stupidest.

I would agree but that are the rules as a penalty in the competitive sense. To me I would make any bad move a 2 straight white which acts like a coasting without the benefit of stress removal.

Now for casual you are actually going to have to get along with your player and come to a decision on what you want to do. If you were flying casual some might question flying them off the board to "punish" them might be other than casual. Flying them somewhere that is not much of an advantage but still leaves them on the play might be more casual than simply saying HA HA GOT YA and destroy the ship just to win.

Again when flying casual what are you playing for. If you are playing to win well congratulation so is everyone apparently, are you playing in a tournament style setting and want to practice for an upcoming regional (which is now over for the year) then make it clear and upfront before the game starts. If you are trying out a new build or a new ship let them know that the tournament scene is not what you are looking for and don't forget to be as forgiving as you would hope to be allowed to take back mistakes. You don't get anything for winning a game of X-wing outside a premier event.

Flying casual is all about your attitude and I say the golden rule applies to treat each player as you would want to be treated. Still take it a step further and let your opponent know how you want the game to be treated. In a tournament or competitive league this is not necessary as TO are there and it is clearly a competitive style. If there is no TO then it is a casual game so it is up to both you and your partner to set the style.

I try to take the approach that the positive attitude I bring to any game is going to have an overall positive impact on everything that occurs at the table. Regardless of what the TO or my opponent does.

Honestly I have had an extremely small number of games that have gotten into uncomfortable places. I'm pretty good at reading people and can typically discuss things well enough to head off most problem areas.

Here's my outlook. First, I mainly play x wing for tournaments. My stores do tournaments every other week plus I go to all the near by store championships, regionals, gencon, and worlds. I love competitive x wing. Most of the players in my area are always playing as tournament practice. That said in tournaments and tournament practice we fly as close to perfect as we can, we take our medicine like grown ups, and we don't ask for take backs.

We expect each other to know the rules and be able to keep up to date with them. When new rules and faqs come out we talk about them and help each other get to know them better.

We try to be as clean as possible playing. We try to avoid needless bumping of ships and obstacles. We use crit tokens to remember crits. We put our fingers on the bases and templates to be as accurate as possible and try to do all of this in as little time as possible.

When doing tournaments or tournament practice we capitalize on our mistakes and remind them about it afterwards with some good laughs. Just last night a guy with predator kept forgetting he could reroll 2 dice against ps2 ships. Now some us will give the other person 1 reminder just as a courtesy but we neither expect it nor feel entitled to it. If we do red maneuvers while stressed we expect our ships to be flown right off the board and laugh about it. At worlds last year I flew a guys ship off the board and didnt feel bad at all, i drove 11 hours so im playing by the rules lol. We hold each other to a high standard of play and we don't take things personally. In anything competitive it is natural to capitalize on mistakes. We take our medicine like grown ups and suck it up.

Also and this is a big one, we do not ask for take backs! Honestly this is one of the worst things to do imo when it comes to competitive x wing and the problem I have with the op in his scenario. When asking for a take back you have now tainted the match. If the other person doesn't allow it he can been seen as a jerk and people could say oh he only won because he was a jerk. If he does allow the take back then people can say oh he only lost because he allowed the take back. This is why we need to strive to play as clean and perfect as possible to avoid those mistakes and situations. When asking for the take back you are putting the other player on the spot. If you say you don't expect take backs then don't ever ask for them. It's a scummy thing to do and Para it was honestly a **** move on your part for asking to shoot with your ship after you missed the opportunity. You should have taken your medicine like a grown up and accepted your mistake and learned from it.

Now against new players or those who don't want to practice tournaments than these guidelines don't apply and I'll let ya do as many take backs as ya want and will even discuss why I'm doing the stuff I'm doing and what I'm going to do.

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

To prevent a tactical advantage from ever being derived from it.

AFP, I don't see how it was a **** move to ask. I did so politely and my opponent wasn't under any obligation to allow me to. After more games of the swarm with the single Black Squadron in it, I took it out and I just run 8 Academies at 96 points. Those extra 4 points the wingman BSP costs just feed my opponent more points and I forget to fire first with the BSP a good 50% of the time and since my opponents are under no obligation to grant me my request to fire with it after the academies fire even though they always do I'm not running it anymore.

*shrugs* Maybe if my opponent didn't allow me to fire with my BSP I would have learned, but since I suffered no consequence to missing the trigger a significant amount of the time I didn't learn.

I think it's okay to fly stressed red maneuver ships off the board.

This is a just a terrible rule, generally speaking, for X-Wing. Seriously, think about it:

Is setting a red maneuver (while stressed) a mistake of tactics? Of course it isn't.

It's a mistake, usually, of vision ("I didn't see the stress token"), or it's a mistake of fatigue ("Just zoned out"), or it's a mistake of inexperience ("I didn't know that rule").

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

Here's how it should be handled:

When a red maneuver is set, and the ship is stressed (or it acquires stress after the dial is set, which can happen!), the dial should be automatically set to the shortest straight green maneuver.

There are not many "just plain terrible" rules in X-Wing, but the "red-while-stressed" rule is just about the stupidest.

As for me, it's only nearly happened once, and that was because my opponent didn't understand that Tyco shouldn't rotate to a red maneuver while stressed. As soon as my opponent (who was out of practice for months) uttered the words "I'll rotate my dial" in reference to stay on target I explained what would happen.

What I learned from this thread is that AtomicFryingPan takes his medicine like a grown up.

AFP, I don't see how it was a **** move to ask. I did so politely and my opponent wasn't under any obligation to allow me to. After more games of the swarm with the single Black Squadron in it, I took it out and I just run 8 Academies at 96 points. Those extra 4 points the wingman BSP costs just feed my opponent more points and I forget to fire first with the BSP a good 50% of the time and since my opponents are under no obligation to grant me my request to fire with it after the academies fire even though they always do I'm not running it anymore.

*shrugs* Maybe if my opponent didn't allow me to fire with my BSP I would have learned, but since I suffered no consequence to missing the trigger a significant amount of the time I didn't learn.

What I learned from this thread is that AtomicFryingPan takes his medicine like a grown up.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Why does the game punish it so horribly punitively? I've never understood that.

To prevent a tactical advantage from ever being derived from it.

Please explain how that is possible. (There is one possibility, under my proposed "shortest green straight" rule, but it's not at all broken, and could actually be a benefit for the interaction in question.)

As a rule, I don't ask anyone to let me fix my mistakes. If I notice I made one, I'll point it out;

"Whoops, I started moving this ship before I took my action with this one. Oh well."

I never ask for an exception, and if it's offered I ask my opponent "Are you sure? It was my screw-up."

When a measurement, distance, or bump is questionable, I ask my opponent to rule on it unless there's a convenient 3rd party to ask. When my opponent asks me to judge these things, I usually rule in their favor.

This weekend, I accidentally flew an A-Wing off into oblivion because I dropped a bank to the right instead of the left and went right off the board. We had both been playing for 12 hours at that point, and I didn't ask for a take-back, even though I was sure I'd get one if I asked. Instead, my opponent and I just laughed about it and moved on even though it was the deciding game of the tournament. That, to me, was the epitome of Fly Casual. It was a tight game and we both had fun.

I mean, if I'm granted a forgotten trigger first I'm much more lenient to allow my opponent a forgotten trigger of their own. I had granted him a forgotten trigger already so it was fair for me to ask one of him. I still wouldn't have faulted him for not allowing the BSP to fire.

While he might have been pressured just by my mere asking in a polite manner, I didn't have an attitude about it and the pressure comes more from his fly casual persuasion than my polite asking. The pressure I caved into to allow him the TL was his attitude and the idea that I'd be shunned from this group for being, "That guy".

IDK, one time I was playing 3 Defenders, K Turned one off the board, and still won. After the game was over I threw both fists in the air and exclaimed, "Yes, I won with 3 Defenders!" and I haven't seen the guy since LOL. I didn't mean to shame him. I kind of feared him just leaving the game because of his mistaken beliefs.