"I was going to make a comment here but it would detract from the topic at hand and would cause a separate discussion to begin about said comment, due to the controversial nature of my opinion." - no one, ever.

Really though, I'll stay away from any more commenting on these fly casual discussions.

Live free and fly hard folks.

Live free and fly hard folks.

Not sure if that sounds better as The Worlds Most Interesting Man, or Red Green.

There's rules against refusing to engage.

If you didn't want to play, you could have done that at home.

No, there are not. There are rules against slow play, but those two are not at all the same thing.

Unsportsmanlike conduct. It depends on what the organizer considers that to be. Purposefully frustrating your opponenet to win by technicality would qualify in most cases.

How is playing effectively unsportsmanlike?

Live free and fly hard folks.

Not sure if that sounds better as The Worlds Most Interesting Man, or Red Green.

Wait--they're not the same person?

Keep your stick on the ice.

I dunno, there are a lot of things you could do in this game that suck from one perspective. I was playing some time ago and my opponent revealed a red maneuver dial while he had a stress. So naturally I flew him into an asteroid and he went boom. My opponent sort of nodded a "Well, that just happened," and we moved on. A couple weeks ago my opponent continually Ion Cannoned my Lambda off the board. I shrugged a sort of "Well, that just happened," and we moved on. On both occasions we chuckled afterwards over a few beers and discussed how we could have avoided the situations. Not every maneuver your opponent makes will be optimal for you but that doesn't mean you can't still have a good time. I like to win just as much as the next guy but if I lose within the confines of the rules then well, ****, you know?

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

The imperial list should have arc dodged behind the B's no problem.

The Rebel list should have had no problem cornering the TIE's.

I guess technically it is legal, but it sound's dirty. "His list is better than mine? Better spend the match running away" is what it seems the imperial player was thinking. Of course I would need specifics on his list. If he ran a bunch of saber or alpha squadron pilots, may I could see it. But If he took turr, Fel, or even Fel's wrath, I would have to question his play. Especially if they had PTL or AT. Of course the Rebel player should have also committed more if his opponent had AT. Stress those B's out and get at least in range 2.

So while yes, it's not slow play, but it is a dirty tactic, both sides it seems are at fault for not committing harder. It seems the Imperial player was afraid of dice, and the Rebel player afraid of stress.

Idk if the Imp player would be saying BBBBZ is better than his list, but just accepting that raw stats wise, trading blows in formation (jousting) will result in a loss more often than not. Therefore, he has to try and break up the formation and force situations where the Imp player can take shots with minimal return fire (at least nothing more than an individual Interceptor can handle, 1-2 shots if fully tokened".

If the BBBBZ player is not breaking up his formation, or predicting where the Imp ships will be moving, giving him multiple arcs on each Imp ship, then it would be silly for the Imp player to NOT boost and barrel roll away. It is the wrong choice to try and "hope" for good green dice when the Imp player could run away and try to break up the formation again or force a better situation.

If nothing opens up, or the Imp player is not able to cause any situations to open up, or the imp player guesses incorrectly and chooses the "safe" move rather than an aggressive move that might have actually worked in his favor, then it is not impossible that no ships could die. In an equal player skill matchup, this is not unlikely to happen. Properly flying Interceptors many times involves making the "safest" choice until a situation arises where the "safest" choice also allows the Interceptor to shoot at ships (like being on a ship's flank). In the planning phase, if the Imp player was never in a situation where the safest move also meant shooting at the opponent, then he will be taking safe moves that give no shots at all. This is the game that Ints sometimes have to play to beat these lists, and it is unfortunate that in the OPs proposed situation that it ended with no ships destroyed.

Considering this was a tournament, as I Imagine it's rare to play timed casual games, it seems like fair play to me.

Every list has a bad match up, just cause you get that match up don't mean you're resigned to hammer your face into it. The Rebel player could of broke formation and spread his arcs out, the Imperial player could of attempted to flank the entire formation. Both were riskier plays then what they felt comfortable doing in a competitive environment so they stubbornly played it that way till time. If there is any fault to be had it was on both players heads as they both had workable options.

Properly flying Interceptors many times involves making the "safest" choice until a situation arises where the "safest" choice also allows the Interceptor to shoot at ships (like being on a ship's flank).

This is why I suck at Interceptors, even though I love them.

There's a difference between scoring 50 points in kills while avoiding enemy firing arcs and playing a 96 point list and avoiding combat for an hour and a half so you can win by 4 points.

If someone can't see the difference, they are being obtuse. And that isn't acute at all.

This post showed both that:

1) You don't know the rules

2) Your argument up to this point has been suspect.

Perfectly legit play from both players. No room to be mad about it. Taking a draw isn't something I would want to do personally, but to each his own. Neither player did anything wrong, assuming they were both playing at a decent clip.

I have had somewhat unsporting games played before where both players Fortressed turn 1 and both refused to break theirs for 70 mins. I understand why, but I would consider that to be more unsporting. Still perfectly legitimate and they took the draw, but it did leave a bad taste.

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

I hope you don't mind me annexing that little pic - which is by the way spectacular - for my own uses.

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

ARGH!!! YE DONE CAUGHT THAR A MIGHTY SPACE WHALE!

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

I hope you don't mind me annexing that little pic - which is by the way spectacular - for my own uses.

Just don't spoon-feed anyone the joke. Make em work for it.

Yeah, "highly defensive play" is ethical in all situations. It may or may not be good play, or fun play, but there's nothing wrong with it morally.Like basically everyone else, I'd draw a distinction between running your ships away from a joust and actual slow-playing, in the sense of taking forever to put dials down and move your ships and whathaveyou.

Absolutely nothing unethical about playing to your strengths and REFUSING to play into your opponents. If we were looking at a Falcon Fortress instead of a BBBBZ list then people might be saying the Fortress list is the one that isn't playing nice instead of the three Imperial Arc-dodgers who are refusing to engage. I'll admit this discussion is more pre-Autothrusters but it can still happen.

...

I have had somewhat unsporting games played before where both players Fortressed turn 1 and both refused to break theirs for 70 mins. I understand why, but I would consider that to be more unsporting. Still perfectly legitimate and they took the draw, but it did leave a bad taste.

Those are the games where both players should write down a number of minutes before time is called at which they plan to act/break the fortress. Then just fast forward the clock to that time and play out the end instead of wasting everyone's time to that point.

I've had situations where I've played very defensively, primarily when I've had one target that I know my opponent really wants to kill. In these cases, it has been less about trying to force time to run out or trying to keep my ship alive to the end, and more about keeping him focused on one ship so my other ships can more freely maneuver for optimal positioning.

If an opponent has a Fortress Build and never engages - is it your duty to go in and attack - OR can you just fly around in circles waiting for him to come out?

I have not faced a Fortress build or ever run one, but just thinking about a worst case scenario. I don't see anything unethical about it - just boring and nobody really wins.

In terms of BBBBZ - I have run Interceptors against them and have no problem engaging at some point. I could see how you could miss a lot of rounds of attacking if both players are trying to position themselves, but if you are actively moving and seeking position, I see no problem if it were end in a tie.

This game, by design, does not present great opportunities for fortress builds. The most famous fortress match in X-Wing (Whisper/Miniswarm vs Fort Wedge at Worlds) featured a two-inch strip of space along the edge of the board where only one of the Rebel ships would have had a shot without breaking formation. A small swarm of TIEs could have entered that strip with a prime chance to destroy the whole formation.

The Rebel player presented his opponent with a Trench Run scenario in a Star Wars game, and the Imperial player spent 50 minutes neglecting to take advantage of it. That is why he failed.

You could setup a 3-Lambda build in a corner with HLCs (one being Yorr) and essentially wait for ships to come.

Your opponent can likely fire first, but they would be wading into 12 attack dice (3x4) each round.

I have run a Lambda plus a Black Squad Tie Fighter with Wingman to remove stress on 0 and hard 2s and could theoretically leave him in one spot the entire game.

Inertial Dampeners can do the same thing, which is why I'm wondering whether or not it presents a scenario where it could happen.

Inertial Dampeners can do the same thing, which is why I'm wondering whether or not it presents a scenario where it could happen.

You discard the card after pulling the 0 move though.

Yeah, "highly defensive play" is ethical in all situations. It may or may not be good play, or fun play, but there's nothing wrong with it morally.Like basically everyone else, I'd draw a distinction between running your ships away from a joust and actual slow-playing, in the sense of taking forever to put dials down and move your ships and whathaveyou.

Rodders! Is that you?

None other! Long time no see!

If an opponent has a Fortress Build and never engages - is it your duty to go in and attack - OR can you just fly around in circles waiting for him to come out?

I have not faced a Fortress build or ever run one, but just thinking about a worst case scenario. I don't see anything unethical about it - just boring and nobody really wins.

In terms of BBBBZ - I have run Interceptors against them and have no problem engaging at some point. I could see how you could miss a lot of rounds of attacking if both players are trying to position themselves, but if you are actively moving and seeking position, I see no problem if it were end in a tie.

This game, by design, does not present great opportunities for fortress builds. The most famous fortress match in X-Wing (Whisper/Miniswarm vs Fort Wedge at Worlds) featured a two-inch strip of space along the edge of the board where only one of the Rebel ships would have had a shot without breaking formation. A small swarm of TIEs could have entered that strip with a prime chance to destroy the whole formation.

The Rebel player presented his opponent with a Trench Run scenario in a Star Wars game, and the Imperial player spent 50 minutes neglecting to take advantage of it. That is why he failed.

You could setup a 3-Lambda build in a corner with HLCs (one being Yorr) and essentially wait for ships to come.

Your opponent can likely fire first, but they would be wading into 12 attack dice (3x4) each round.

I have run a Lambda plus a Black Squad Tie Fighter with Wingman to remove stress on 0 and hard 2s and could theoretically leave him in one spot the entire game.

Inertial Dampeners can do the same thing, which is why I'm wondering whether or not it presents a scenario where it could happen.

Don't forget the Advanced Sensors and you might as well toss in a Fleet Officer so that 2 of the 3 can take TL+Focus HLC shots.

Fly casual is a euphemism for, "Fly Sloppy". All it is ever used for are justifications for sloppy play and granting your opponent advantages and never to signify someone having a polite attitude. You can WAAC and still be a polite person, likewise you can be a casual player and get angry at your opponent for playing well.

If your opponent chooses a red maneuver when already stressed you fly that ship right off the board. If they measure range with their PS 2 ship and perform an attack with it before attacking with their PS 9 ship, you don't let them fire with their PS 9 ship. "Sorry, but you missed your opportunity to fire."

If they measure range with their PS 2 ship and perform an attack with it before attacking with their PS 9 ship, you don't let them fire with their PS 9 ship. "Sorry, but you missed your opportunity to fire."

Would your two 8s and a 6 also miss their opportunity to attack when your opponent attacks with the wrong ship if you failed to stop him from acting out of order?

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

Good, our first catch of the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8YIR60Ij0

Am I the only one that is hating what "Fly Casual" has become.

It has become the mantra and calling card for people to brow beat their opponents for not flying in the style expected of them.

In this scenario, Fly Casual does not come into it. The Imperial player, based on the description was not pro-fly casual, he also was not against fly casual.

For me, and this may be a personal opinion that others disagree with, my opponent in a tournament should use his ships strengths and his own play style and tactical thinking to give him the best chance of winning and should play that to the best of his ability. I think anything less then that is insulting to me as his opponent. Where does Fly Casual fit in to that? It doesn't, it's like saying 2+2= pineapple.

Fly Casual is about the atmosphere of the game.

Does your opponent approach the contest in a friendly manner?

Does your opponent offer to move your ships when they are on his side of the board?

Does he engage you in friendly conversation and not try and psych you out?

Does he work with you to mark ships and hold obstructions to make the game easier?

Note - none of these have anything to do with rules. If he is bumping ships deliberately, or taking time setting dials, that is also 2+2=pineapple as far as Fly Casual is concerned. It's just flat out cheating (though in my experience, most cheats do not embrace Fly Casual in other regards)

If you did not enjoy the game, and the reason is "the way he flew", then most of the time, that is more a reflection of your "Fly Casual" than his.

examples.

1. There is a player that I have never lost to. I usually beat him 100-0. Whenever he thinks he is losing, he gets aggressive and will be heavy handed with his dials, slamming them down (sometimes so hard it jumps the table), he then sits there with his arms crossed glaring at the table while you are moving. He won't help move your ships and you actually have to ask him to get out of the way sometimes in order to get yourself in a position to move. He usually won't shake your hand if he has lost. When he wins, you can hear his cheers and "That's how I roll!" screams from 6 tables over (probably from outside the store). I do not enjoy playing him because of his attitude, and will refuse to play him except when paired with him at a tourney.

2. There is a player that I have never beaten (currently 0-6). He will usually pull me apart in under 20 minutes. Regardless, if I was to rank my 5 most fun games of X-Wing, i'd probably have 3 matches against him in there. He always comes up with anti-meta lists and tactical ideas and pushes me to learn. During our games we cooperate well to maintain the game state and have a great conversation. Post game we will analyse the tactics and lists and discuss list building and the ideas behind our lists and talk about how our lists should approach the other lists at the tourney.

The first one does not "Fly Casual" even though he follows all the rules, follows conventional tactics and doesn't slow play. The second one is definitely "Fly Casual", and he does not follow conventional tactics, and is known for running away for 45+ minutes when he flys something like 4 A-Wings.

It's Friday and Crawfs sig got me thinking.

Good, our first catch of the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8YIR60Ij0

I must have missed that scene entirely...