This has been the only game I've played competitively where a significant portion of people vilify others by playing by the rules. I mean, what does "Fly Casual" even mean any more? It should mean both players are playing by the rules at all times and they're cool about it (measure your range, check arcs, declare when appropriate, etc.). However, as others have mentioned, it has become an excuse for sloppy play. I don't mind reminding people of rules in a casual game but playing in a tournament expectations should be higher.

In summation,

Play by the rules and by cool about it.

Call a TO over if you need to.

"Fly Casual" is dumb and doesn't mean anything anymore.

So yeah. It's exactly as simple as people like us have said. Follow the rules, don't be a womp rat about stuff.

There's nothing at stake in a tournament, so your play style should not be any 'tighter.' X Wing is X Wing, no one is making a living from playing the game so there's no point acting like you are.

If someone wants to play a tight, competitive game then by all means accommodate them. If YOU want to play a tight, competitive game, then by all means do so! The key to 'flying casual' is being communicative enough to work out how your opponent likes to play, and then being a big enough person to accommodate them.

Now, I get the idea that some people like to test their skills in a competitive environment. I get that people can play casually at home and then like to lift their game at a tournament. But that's about them, not about their opponents. No matter how 'tight' you want to play, there is no excuse for not being generous to your opponent. It's up to the individual as to where they draw the line, but so long as everyone starts with the default setting of being generous to their opponent then everyone would be happy.

In my experience, the only people who balk at the idea of being generous to their opponent in a competitive environment are the people who measure their self-worth by how many X Wing games they can win.

I typically try to live and play by this statement:

"Don't be a ****."

Ultimately this is a game of plastic ships and dice. Even at the biggest stages, just be nice.

There's nothing at stake in a tournament, so your play style should not be any 'tighter.' X Wing is X Wing, no one is making a living from playing the game so there's no point acting like you are.

If someone wants to play a tight, competitive game then by all means accommodate them. If YOU want to play a tight, competitive game, then by all means do so! The key to 'flying casual' is being communicative enough to work out how your opponent likes to play, and then being a big enough person to accommodate them.

Now, I get the idea that some people like to test their skills in a competitive environment. I get that people can play casually at home and then like to lift their game at a tournament. But that's about them, not about their opponents. No matter how 'tight' you want to play, there is no excuse for not being generous to your opponent. It's up to the individual as to where they draw the line, but so long as everyone starts with the default setting of being generous to their opponent then everyone would be happy.

In my experience, the only people who balk at the idea of being generous to their opponent in a competitive environment are the people who measure their self-worth by how many X Wing games they can win.

Exactly. In 40K, and many other games, these guys are known as Neckbeards and Rules Lawyers. Doesnt matter if its a slight misstep or the rule is kind of foggy, if you dont follow the letter of the rules then sucks to be you. These are the people that made/make 40K tournaments aggravating and UNfun. Now yes if we move to the shooting phase, Ive shot one ship, and you forgot to focus someone yeah its a little late. But if its at the end of movement and you realize that you forgot to focus your PS1 Defender Im going to let you put the focus down. "Fly Casual" to me is there is a certain flexibility you should always allow to make the game fun for both parties.

This has been the only game I've played competitively where a significant portion of people vilify others by playing by the rules. I mean, what does "Fly Casual" even mean any more? It should mean both players are playing by the rules at all times and they're cool about it (measure your range, check arcs, declare when appropriate, etc.). However, as others have mentioned, it has become an excuse for sloppy play. I don't mind reminding people of rules in a casual game but playing in a tournament expectations should be higher.

In summation,

Play by the rules and by cool about it.

Call a TO over if you need to.

"Fly Casual" is dumb and doesn't mean anything anymore.

Speaking as someone who was around when Fly Casual was first promoted (I even have the t-shirt!) it means the same thing it always has: be respectful, and be the kind of person you'd want another match against.

It's not vague, and it's not an excuse for sloppy play. The idea is that we're all ambassadors for the game, so we should act like it. Someone who walks by and sees a match in progress should see two people having a good time playing with their Star Wars toys, not two angry people having a barely contained shouting match over an arcane subclause of the rules.

But nothing about that is vague or incompatible with tournament play. It is somewhat context-dependent--as I said upthread, it might be appropriate to ask either "Are you sure?" or "The first step of combat is measurement. Are you sure you want to skip your ship's activation?" But especially at the premier level, "be respectful" doesn't mean "anything goes". It doesn't exactly even mean "be nice". It means you show up ready to play: you don't waste your time or your opponent's in sloppy play. You know the rules (especially those that apply to your list), rather than spending time arguing over them. You don't miss opportunities--or rather you don't miss many, and when you do you work quickly to resolve the issue and move on. If a dispute arises, you don't make it personal or turn it into a Lincoln-Douglas debate, but instead just call over a TO and ask for a ruling.

"Fly Casual" is still relevant to the game. It's true that people misuse it, but that just means pushing back a little bit.

I think people tend to start talking extremes when talking about vague and nebulous things such as sportsmanship. If I am playing a game against someone who clearly has little idea what they are doing (non-tournament setting) then I ease off the gas and treat it as a tutorial and help the other player understand the mechanics of the game. I don't play in tournaments (yet) but I would expect that the "I don't really know how to play the game" situation does not come up much. It is more likely to be isolated incidents where an Action is missed or an Action chain is not quite finished or something like that. In these cases it is good sportsmanship to allow the mulligan so long as there is not a lot of guesswork as to how to remedy it.

To use a sports analogy, when my team is about to run-rule another team in baseball we do things like stop stealing home on wild pitches, stop stealing altogether, stop taking extra bases on long hits, etc... I don't ever tell my players to stop trying, but to ease off the gas. We are not trying to embarrass the other players. You can be competitive and try to win without being a turd.

Kant answers all questions about ethics...

IMO, Fly Casual was a poor choice of words from the get-go. Casual already has strong connotations in the gaming field, not all of them in line with the intent I the phrase.Given that they do organize a World Championship do invest quite a bit of effort into the balancing of rules, I doubt FFG only wanted noncompetitive people in X-wing for example (casual is often used as an antonym for competitive).

Something more neutral, like let's say Fly Relaxed would have been better IMO.

In these cases it is good sportsmanship to allow the mulligan so long as there is not a lot of guesswork as to how to remedy it.

To use a sports analogy...

I don't know much about baseball. My own sports analogy is martial arts: when you're in the ring with a sparring partner and he drops his hands out of a guard position without realizing it, good sportsmanship doesn't mean you stop the match and explain what happened and how you'd fix it.

Instead, you respect your own practice, your opponent's skills, and the rules you both agreed to by hitting him in the face. Good sportsmanship merely means not gloating about it afterward.

In fact, doing anything other than taking advantage of the opening can be construed as disrespectful. It's basically saying "I'm so much better than you are that I can afford to pass up a chance to hit you." Maybe that's true, but if so you shouldn't have met each other in the ring.

The analogy starts to break down a little if you look closely (for one thing, X-wing has a lot more rules). And as I said upthread, I have a tendency to be scrupulously honest even when it hurts me. But there's still something to the ethic of expecting a clean match where everyone gives their best effort, rather than one where the players are merely nice to each other.

I found the Answer to your problem.

For me I would say be cool and show people how to play better in a non turnament environment they have more fun and you get better tournaments. Plus you get the cool factor of not being a D

In these cases it is good sportsmanship to allow the mulligan so long as there is not a lot of guesswork as to how to remedy it.

To use a sports analogy...

I don't know much about baseball. My own sports analogy is martial arts: when you're in the ring with a sparring partner and he drops his hands out of a guard position without realizing it, good sportsmanship doesn't mean you stop the match and explain what happened and how you'd fix it.

Instead, you respect your own practice, your opponent's skills, and the rules you both agreed to by hitting him in the face. Good sportsmanship merely means not gloating about it afterward.

*Please note, all references to 'you' are referring to an unspecified third party, not to any actual poster.*

The analogy isn't perfect, but you wouldn't take advantage of ANY opening in a fight. If he tripped or his mouthgard was knocked out, or someone threw something out of the crowd that struck him, you don't just step in and wail on him. Or maybe you do, I don't know, but it's "good sportsmanship" to allow an opponent to regroup under certain circumstances.

Getting back to X Wing, maybe you think you're being respectful to your opponent by crushing him mercilessly and sticking fiercely to the no-take-backs rule. And maybe you are. But what's going on in YOUR head is not necessarily what's going on in your opponents head, and without some kind of an attempt to synchronise those two head spaces there's no way to tell if your giving your opponent the flogging he feels he justly deserves, or if you're crushing his spirits and utterly embarrassing him.

It's hard to talk in blanket terms and absolute statements when something like sportsmanship is so hard to define, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

In the context of this thread, it is good sportsmanship to encourage your opponent to check the range. Choosing to hold your tongue and then taking the return shot later in the combat phase is not good sportsmanship. It's not necessarily bad sportsmanship either. That's something people need to remember: just because you're not displaying good sportsmanship doesn't mean you're automatically displaying bad sportsmanship. But not encouraging your opponent to take the shot when you're confident it's in range is not good sportsmanship.

In general it is good sportsmanship to offer reminders for missed opportunities. If the player wants a tight, clean match then he will refuse to take advantage of your generosity, and if he doesn't then he won't, but at least you've given him the opportunity to choose. It's up to the individual how generous they want to be in terms of reminders and take-backs, but it's almost always best to start with an attitude of "I'll be very generous" and scale it up from there. If your opponent starts to take advantage or displays a desire to play a tight, clean match unsullied by things like reminders and offers of take-backs then adjust your attitude accordingly.

In general it is not good sportsmanship to ask for take-backs or reminders. This is your squad to fly, and you shouldn't need to have your opponent help you to fly it. If someone offers you a reminder or take-back, then regardless of whether you accept it or not, please thank them for their generosity. They don't have to be generous like that, they are displaying good sportsmanship and should be thanked for it.

In general it is BAD sportsmanship to expect or demand take-backs. Just don't do it. Don't be that guy.

Like anything in life, X Wing goes much more smoothly if we're all on the same page. IMO, fly casual means communicate with your opponent about how you'd both like to play the game, and adjust accordingly. And it is totally fair to expect your opponent to fly casual as well. And sometimes that means your opponent steps up and gives you a thorough whipping with his game face on, and sometimes it means he steps down and you both goof around making 'pew pew' noises and repeating Star Wars quotes, but the important thing is the communication. Just trying to play the game you the way you want, with no thought or regard for your opponent is not going to win you any friends and is not going to lead to a game that two people enjoy.

Communicate, and be open to compromise.

It's that simple.

IMO, Fly Casual was a poor choice of words from the get-go. Casual already has strong connotations in the gaming field, not all of them in line with the intent I the phrase.Given that they do organize a World Championship do invest quite a bit of effort into the balancing of rules, I doubt FFG only wanted noncompetitive people in X-wing for example (casual is often used as an antonym for competitive).

Something more neutral, like let's say Fly Relaxed would have been better IMO.

But no one said "I dunno, fly relaxed" in the movies...

@Chucknuckle: I'm on my phone, so trimming quotes is a headache. Apologies for any confusion.

If an opponent trips, you absolutely do strike him. It's the same thing as dropping your guard, really, although it's more overt and dramatic: if you lose control of your body, you should expect your opponent to make use of the opportunity.

Someone losing a mouthguard does mean stopping the match, because it's a safety issue. (The person without a mouthguard is at substantially increased risk of damage to both teeth and jaw, but exposed teeth are also a risk for the opponent--they're sharp, after all, and weird things happen when you fling bodies at each other at relatively high speed.) But it's the judge that stops the match, not the fighters, and until the judge steps in it's the responsibility of both fighters to continue to defend themselves.

Anyway, I've already admitted the analogy breaks down at a certain point (no safety issues in X-wing!) My approach to good sportsmanship is to be explicit about timing windows and passing priority. When either I or my opponent makes a mistake, I resolve them as quickly as possible, and stay amicable regardless of whether the resolution works to my advantage. I play to win, but I try not to mistake either winning or losing as a reflection of my self-worth.

As I said upthread, I feel as if I often err on the side of being too nice at the table. It's an error because handing out break after break isn't necessarily courteous or respectful to my opponent--eventually, it shades over from courtesy into the "soft bigotry of low expectations." And it's an error because it off en stems from a fear that I'm always about to screw up, and if I've been nice to you then maybe you'll be nice to me. So I'm actively trying to change that: my new line is that I'll respect you by assuming you know what you're doing, and in turn you respect me by trying your best to live up to it.

Of course there's a happy medium between total, no-quarter warfare and unlimited mulligans--and you're right that keeping a running dialogue of shared expectations is a great guide to finding that sweet spot. But I think it's important for us as a community to recognize that treating each other well isn't mutually exclusive with high expectations of each other's knowledge, skills, and behavior.

Yawn.... Do what you think is right, Luke.

Checking for range is a good habit to get into; even if the ships are clearly beyond range 3, when they activate for attack just hold your range ruler between them for a tenth of a second. Sometimes clearly beyond turns out to be just in range.

So in the spirit of that thought, I'd tell my opponent that if he wants to declare something out of range without measuring, he is free to do so. But that I will measure come my activation.

If they're ready with activating all ships at a PS and I get to activate, and they've missed something, I will ask if they're sure they don't want to do anything else, pointing out the first few times what they've missed. That is also because I don't want to be accused of playing too fast, robbing people of opportunities.

As for what I'm morally responsible for, I tend to the scrupulously-honest-even-when-it's-bad-for-me side of tournament play. I usually regret it afterward: the recent example that sticks in my head is when I stopped an opposing player from removing his ship by reminding him of the Simultaneous Attack Rule, and lost a fairly healthy Omicron + Palpatine as a result.

I'm a lot like that as well. A couple tournaments ago, I was flying against someone and we had a really close game as time was getting ready to expire. When the final round was announced we were just getting ready to put dials down and I was winning by points (barely). My opponent offered to concede victory to me but I flat out refused, telling him that he had a very good chance of killing at least one of my ships this round while I probably couldn't take any of his off the board. He asked me if I was sure and I insisted we play on.

He ended up killing my Omega Leader (as I figured he would, given he only had one hull left has was going to be facing TLT attacks from two Y-wings) and winning the game.

Of course the biggest point where the martial arts metaphor falls down for me is that I wouldn't ever be engaged in friendly conversation in a fight. Just that fact alone means that I have to be more careful about being too relaxed/casual about the rules because everyone in the game seems so sodding nice, the gits.

IMO, Fly Casual was a poor choice of words from the get-go. Casual already has strong connotations in the gaming field, not all of them in line with the intent I the phrase.Given that they do organize a World Championship do invest quite a bit of effort into the balancing of rules, I doubt FFG only wanted noncompetitive people in X-wing for example (casual is often used as an antonym for competitive).

Something more neutral, like let's say Fly Relaxed would have been better IMO.

It's a star wars reference. Questionable at worst semantics don't exonerate from acting with decency. After reading more of your posts in this thread it's starting to sound like your opponent was just new to vassal, I am going to reiterate my original stance that you were straight up being a ****.

IMO, Fly Casual was a poor choice of words from the get-go. Casual already has strong connotations in the gaming field, not all of them in line with the intent I the phrase.Given that they do organize a World Championship do invest quite a bit of effort into the balancing of rules, I doubt FFG only wanted noncompetitive people in X-wing for example (casual is often used as an antonym for competitive).

Something more neutral, like let's say Fly Relaxed would have been better IMO.

It's a star wars reference. Questionable at worst semantics don't exonerate from acting with decency. After reading more of your posts in this thread it's starting to sound like your opponent was just new to vassal, I am going to reiterate my original stance that you were straight up being a ****.

Reading comprehension fail. Big time. Thanks for the free insult though.

The situation described in the OP never happened. Please find a statement for me where I said it did. It's purely hypothetical, a question sparked by the other thread, seeing a guy eyeball range on Vassal wrong (I did correct him as it was a friendly game) and my own habit of keeping quiet about issues like this unless asked for my opinion in tournament games.

My comment about Fly Casual was aimed toward the fact that the militant casuals have taken it to mean 'fly as if you were a casual player', up to condemning playing to win and the refusal to bend the rules.

My comment about Fly Casual was aimed toward the fact that the militant casuals have taken it to mean 'fly as if you were a casual player', up to condemning playing to win and the refusal to bend the rules.

I think the Militant Casual is like the True Scotsman.

He doesn't actually exist. He's like a bogeyman that people wheel out to justify acting like a ****.

I've certainly never encountered one.

I think the issue is that the 'fly casual' crowd expects players to, like I said, communicate and be prepared to compromise with their opponents. And some players don't want to do that and feel like they're being targeted by the fly casual crowd, and as a result they become defensive.

Not saying that you fit that mold, just offering my observations.

Is this the other guy from the post about the TO rolling a die to settle the dispute?

Nope. That thread merely got me wondering. Last night I had a similar situation on Vassal. My opponent eyeballs he's out of range says he doesn't have a shot. I turn on range circle and it turns out he did have a shot. In a tournament I wouldn't have interfered.

This is the post where I inferred it happened, I'm not sure if I misread it or my interpretation was made before your edit, but I will apologize for the name calling.

Let me begin by saying that I do not think that LordBlades was exhibiting unsportsmanlike conduct. Morality is a complex topic, and difficult to navigate, and these are merely the personal rules I hold myself to, and not necessarily the "gold standard" for anyone else. That said;

Definition of Sportsmanship (taken from a martial arts standpoint to provide previously established context):

Huo Yuanjia and Anno Tanaka from Fearless (Yes, I know - it's a fictional depiction of the real Huo Yuanjia's life, but most sources of proper morals are unfortunately ficticious, and doesn't that kind of say something about us all?)

Anno Tanaka is frustrated by Huo Yuanjia having to face 4 opponents wherein his opponents (of which Anno is one) have to face only Huo. He offers to fight Huo at another time of Huo's choosing.

This is good sportmanship ... seeking an even contest based on fair application of the rules to both sides, allowing the decider of victory to be the skill with which these rules are applied to contest.

Huo Yuanjia thanks him but refuses the request, stating simply that "not all fights are fair." This is neither good nor bad sportsmanship. This is merely his choice, though he has demonstrated the "Fly Casual" ideal by thanking Anno for allowing him to make the choice instead of silently accepting an unfair advantage.

Anno Tanaka at this point accepts Huo's judgement and says that he will give him no quarter, refusing to give mercy to what will obviously be a more exhausted opponent. This is also good sportsmanship. He has understood his opponents preference and not refused the fight on his own grounds, instead accepting his opponent's wishes. Moreover, he has alerted his opponent that he will give it his all.

If we take the above metaphorical interaction and apply it to directly to the example in this case, the "good sportsmanship" interaction would have played out something like this;

LordBlades' Opponent: All, right, can't shoot. I'm out of range.

LordBlades: Are you sure you don't want to measure? I think you are in range.

LordBlades' Opponent: Thank you, but I am trying to learn to eyeball my shots and not rely on gauges.

LordBlades: Okay, but I plan to measure, and should the measurement show you in range, I will fire back.

In reality, if LordBlades had mentioned this to his opponent in real life, he probably would have measured, found his ship in range, and fired. Maybe this would have resulted in LordBlades' ship being blown into little pieces and not able to fire back, but maybe his opponent would have missed entirely and nothing at all would have changed. In the end, the victory or defeat would have been based on how well you flew your squadron instead of how poorly your opponent flew his.

Personally, I would rather win because I flew well than win because my opponent flew worse than I did.

Same topic, same answers, same consensus.

Don't be an ass.

I always correct anything that I see as being wrong. A simple "Two dice" said with a smile to the opponent shooting at my PS2 Y-Wing with Predator, after he just rerolls one for example. I acknowledge that this has cost me ships, and probably games, in tournaments. That's the price of being honest and following all the rules even when it's not to your personal advantage. I'll even, once or twice per game, let him take something back such as an obviously and manifestly wrongly-set dial such as a hard 3 left that takes his full HP Falcon off the table instead of a hard 3 right that would swing him back behind one of my ships.

However if he hums and haws over a decision to barrel roll or boost, and makes the wrong one (resulting in him being out of/in arc when he doesn't want to be) it's a judgement call and the consequences are his along with the decision. I have no compunction about letting him make that mistake.

And if you're an ass about it, I'll be an equal ass about it.

Completely new player here and it is a bit disappointing to see there are a few people saying that they'd keep quiet on this one. I'm about to take part in my first tournament next week and thus far the only other person I've played is my brother, so I'm fully expecting to make mistakes myself, but would hope that someone else would see this as ultimately a bit of fun and would at least prompt me to check things. I know I'll be the first to pipe up if someone forgets to do a really obvious action or doesn't pick up enough dice. I'd much rather lose and feel I'd played as courteously as possible than win because the pressure of a tournament setting made someone forget something obvious.

That's obviously going to work against me at times, but this is an X-Wing tournament, not the World Series of Poker.

Generally, I will play in a more relaxed manner at home (ie, be more apt to remind an opponent of something), but will play more competitively at a tourney (I expect you to play your A-game).

I am more likely to cut a newb some slack however, if he is obviously not good or has an uncompetitive build. That may even involve some teachable moments.

For the most part, though, I think being overly generous leads to bad habits. You get better as a player when you suffer the consequences of those mistakes. I find that the best time to offer advice is when the other player has already committed to an unwise course of action. It allows him to learn from it, but also to feel the effects of his own decisions.