Be someone you would like to play against seems like a good start to me.

38 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

As the internets explode with vitriol over exactly what that means. . .

Nobody ever said the internets were lacking in jerks.

2 hours ago, Transmogrifier said:

3) win by playing the game, not by trickery, etc.

To clarify (and I'm sure this is what you meant), "trickery" meaning "withholding/being deceitful about information which should be accessible to the opponent". Being tricky by doing something unexpected ("you figured I'd take a Target Lock and try to use missiles, but instead I'm going to boost into your path so my Rookie can use lasers!") is perfectly fine.

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

I agree with you that there probably is at least one person who actually likes Dengar and Jumpmasters outside of this game. I don't know who they are, but they must be out there!

I like Dengar. I've liked him since I read Tales of the Bounty Hunters , and was very excited when I got a foil Dengar in Punishing One for Decipher's Star Wars CCG! I don't have a Jumpmaster yet, but someday I'd like to get one and use him, not to have a powerful ship, but just because he was always my favorite of the bounty hunters for some reason.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But what if you are flying say Dengar and Nym because you like the ships and characters?

There is a fictitious divide between what's meta and what's fun. Must someone be just thinking about winning when considering playing a Jumpmaster? Or can there be a sense of enjoyment from simply playing with a ship you like? I've flown Parattanni and variants at all kinds of events and causal nights, not just because I wanted to win, but because I love some of the ships involved and want to fly them.

I agree. Playing a potent, competitive deck doesn't necessarily mean you're not playing for fun. I don't have much experience with X-Wing, but I have encountered both sides in other games.

While playing Legend of the Five Rings under AEG, some of the people in my group attended a lot of tournaments, and had honed, competitive decks. They'd play a variety of decks, but when a tournament was upcoming they would play their competitive decks and ask us if we could play our best decks to help them tune up their decks. They played competitive decks, and sometimes the decks were frustrating to play against, but the attitude was still friendly and the games enjoyable as a result.

On the other end, I knew a player back when I played Decipher's Lord of the Rings card game who always played one particular deck, and refused to ever even try any other decks, even if he didn't have to provide the cards (for instance, if someone personally bought a box of boosters to draft with everyone). Several of the most powerful and most important cards in his deck were X-Listed, which wasn't a major deal in itself, but did come across as somewhat hypocritical considering he was a real stickler when it came to other rules ("you took your finger off the token, so you're committed to the action now!") He'd also flat-out refuse to play against certain decks if his own didn't perform well against them. Overall, it made for a really poor playing experience for others, and even, I believe, for himself as well.

12 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Nobody ever said the internets were lacking in jerks.

Well I’m gonna to go then. And I don’t need any of this. I don’t need this stuff, and I don’t need you. I don’t need anything except my Raider. And that’s it and that’s the only thing I need, is this. I don’t need this or this. Just this Raider. And this TIE fighter, the Raider and the TIE fighter and that’s all I need. And this. The Raider, the TIE fighter, and the lambda shuttle, and that’s all I need. And these asteroids. The Raider, and these asteroids, and the lambda shuttle and the TIE fighter. And this play mat. The Raider, this basic game and the lambda shuttle and the play mat and that’s all I need. And that’s all I need too. I don’t need one other thing, not one – I need this. The TIE fighter, and the chair, and the lambda shuttle, and the asteroids , for sure. And this. And that’s all I need. The Raider, the TIE fighter, the basic game, this FAQ and the chair.

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

To clarify (and I'm sure this is what you meant), "trickery" meaning "withholding/being deceitful about information which should be accessible to the opponent". Being tricky by doing something unexpected ("you figured I'd take a Target Lock and try to use missiles, but instead I'm going to boost into your path so my Rookie can use lasers!") is perfectly fine.

I like Dengar. I've liked him since I read Tales of the Bounty Hunters , and was very excited when I got a foil Dengar in Punishing One for Decipher's Star Wars CCG! I don't have a Jumpmaster yet, but someday I'd like to get one and use him, not to have a powerful ship, but just because he was always my favorite of the bounty hunters for some reason.

I agree. Playing a potent, competitive deck doesn't necessarily mean you're not playing for fun. I don't have much experience with X-Wing, but I have encountered both sides in other games.

While playing Legend of the Five Rings under AEG, some of the people in my group attended a lot of tournaments, and had honed, competitive decks. They'd play a variety of decks, but when a tournament was upcoming they would play their competitive decks and ask us if we could play our best decks to help them tune up their decks. They played competitive decks, and sometimes the decks were frustrating to play against, but the attitude was still friendly and the games enjoyable as a result.

On the other end, I knew a player back when I played Decipher's Lord of the Rings card game who always played one particular deck, and refused to ever even try any other decks, even if he didn't have to provide the cards (for instance, if someone personally bought a box of boosters to draft with everyone). Several of the most powerful and most important cards in his deck were X-Listed, which wasn't a major deal in itself, but did come across as somewhat hypocritical considering he was a real stickler when it came to other rules ("you took your finger off the token, so you're committed to the action now!") He'd also flat-out refuse to play against certain decks if his own didn't perform well against them. Overall, it made for a really poor playing experience for others, and even, I believe, for himself as well.

Exactly. Both types of players exist in pretty much any game that involves some sort of building aspect. Your latter example is definitely someone I'd describe as not flying casual.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

To clarify (and I'm sure this is what you meant), "trickery" meaning "withholding/being deceitful about information which should be accessible to the opponent". Being tricky by doing something unexpected ("you figured I'd take a Target Lock and try to use missiles, but instead I'm going to boost into your path so my Rookie can use lasers!") is perfectly fine.

Exactly - creating or exploiting an unclear gamestate would be the sort of thing I mean: fast playing to cause your opponent to miss timing windows, being sloppy with templates, being sloppy with tokens (not moving TLs with ships, placing tokens in ambiguous locations, not using reminder tokens, etc.). I have a pet peeve about players getting cute and putting tokens on ships or on ship bases where they will be difficult to see for this reason. Basically, the gamestate should be clear at all times to both players and if you are doing things that muddy the gamestate (either intentionally or unintentionally) you need to change your habits. Doing this stuff on purpose to confuse your opponents is crappy and makes it so people are having negative experiences. That's how you drive people away from this game.

4 hours ago, VanorDM said:

This is the problem with the Fly Casual concept... People keep wanting to put qualifications on it that make no sense, or quite often are an excuse for sloppy play, and in some cases actually intended as a way to score a win.

Alway having fun is a good goal, but it is not better to lose 95-99 then to win 100-15. I've had games where I simply either out flew, or out build someone so completely that they didn't stand a chance. It wasn't that the person was actually bad at the game or anything, it was just that there was a serious mismatch in lists or wild luck or something.

I've had games where I picked a list at random or just threw together that day or one that had a ship in it I hadn't played for a while... And had it turn out to be the perfect counter to what the other guy was flying.

If you can't walk away from a 100-15 loss with a smile on your face, then it may be that you're the one with the attitude problem not me. Granted if someone brings in a list that can do well at worlds to the 'newbie night' game and trounces everyone then they have a problem. But just because you win by a huge margin doesn't mean you did something wrong or weren't flying casual, and it is absolutely not worse in anyway.

Sure close games are fun, and getting trounced can be frustrating, but they aren't always that way and neither one is has to be more enjoyable the the other.

As you wish. As I said MY way to Fly Casual... There are plenty.

Example of fly casual:

I was at a tournament this weekend. Game was the semi-finals. Opponent had Ello Atsy stressed after flying over a debris. Opponent attempted to then Tallon roll Ello Atsy. I said "Ello Atsy cant tallon roll when stressed, they are only white tallon rolls when he is not stressed." My opponent looked at Ello's card and read the text (newer player) and had an "Oh crap" look. The rules say to perform a white 2 straight trying to do a red maneuver with stress, but that would be bad news for Ello Atsy being range 1 of both my ships, so I told to my opponent to just go ahead and select a different maneuver (as none of my ships had moved yet).

That is basically fly casual. Being competitive does not mean being a **** or rules lawyer, etc.

So... showing up at the game store in my pajamas and slippers: Too casual?

4 minutes ago, Force Majeure said:

So... showing up at the game store in my pajamas and slippers: Too casual?

Depends on the pajamas. If we're talking a t-shirt and sleeping pants, I'd allow it. Bonus points if a bath robe is involved.

43 minutes ago, Force Majeure said:

So... showing up at the game store in my pajamas and slippers: Too casual?

Required kit:

And a shower. Do not forget the shower.

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Required kit:

And a shower. Do not forget the shower.

Yes. The shower is mandatory.

24 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Yes. The shower is mandatory.

WITH SOAP! DONT FORGET THE SOAP!

Edit

I do not like the term "fly casual". Fly better. When it comes to the rules and trying to destroy my opponent, I show no mercy and expect none in return. Someone will remember a mistake that cost them a game far better than one where their opponent let slide; and they will not make that same mistake twice.

That being said, be respectful, polite, and provide your opponent with good conversation while you mercilessly hunt down and kill their starfighters.

3 minutes ago, Varyag said:

I do not like the term "fly casual". Fly better. When it comes to the rules and trying to destroy my opponent, I show no mercy and expect none in return. Someone will remember a mistake that cost them a game far better than one where their opponent let slide; and they will not make that same mistake twice.

That being said, be respectful, polite, and provide your opponent with good conversation while you mercilessly hunt down and kill their starfighters.

Sorta the "spare the rod, spoil the child" approach.

Yyyyyyeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhh, I'm pretty sure you don't get it.

51 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Sorta the "spare the rod, spoil the child" approach.

Yyyyyyeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhh, I'm pretty sure you don't get it.

I don't know. While I don't really live by it, that's the philosophy I think of myself as using. I grew up with the idea that you shouldn't let someone win. If someone wins, it should be fair and honest. Plus, I kinda see it as an insult to the other player if I'm not giving them the respect of trying, nor a good experience to learn from. I may end up being forgiving about small mistakes, but I'm still trying to play the best game I can.

While I don't agree with @Varyag about the term, I do have to say that his way, when applied right, is fair and honest. It sounds like he's gonna treat every opponent the same and he'll own up to his own mistakes. Yeah, it can get brutal, but that's how some people learn. And with his last paragraph on being polite and making conversation, he sounds like a guy I'd be happy to play against. I don't expect mercy in a game. And I'd rather win a game by overcoming my opponent's strengths with my own.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

I don't know. While I don't really live by it, that's the philosophy I think of myself as using. I grew up with idea that you shouldn't let someone win. If someone wins, it should be fair and honest. Plus, I kinda see it as an insult to the other player if I'm not giving them the respect of trying, nor a good experience to learn from. I may end up being forgiving about small mistakes, but I'm still trying to play the best game I can.

While I don't agree with @Varyag about the term, I do have to say that his way, when applied right, is fair and balanced. It sounds like he's gonna treat every opponent the same and he'll own up to his own mistakes. Yeah, it can get brutal, but that's how some people learn. And with his last paragraph on being polite and making conversation, he sounds like a guy I'd be happy to play against. I don't expect mercy in a game. And I'd rather win a game by overcoming my opponent's strengths with my own.

The post left me with an "I'm whipping you, but it's for your own good; you'll thank me later" sorta tone.

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The post left me with an "I'm whipping you, but it's for your own good; you'll thank me later" sorta tone.

And while I can see that interpretation, I got a "I'm bring my a-game, and I want you to do the same" tone.

I might be wrong, of course. Won't fully know unless Varyag decides he wants to clarify. But this is actually a rare optimistic moment about human nature , for me. So I'm gonna enjoy it while it lasts, heh.

24 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And while I can see that interpretation, I got a "I'm bring my a-game, and I want you to do the same" tone.

I might be wrong, of course. Won't fully know unless Varyag decides he wants to clarify. But this is actually a rare optimistic moment about human nature , for me. So I'm gonna enjoy it while it lasts, heh.

Pretty much this. I would feel cheated if I knew my opponent was going easy on me.

Edit: Even when people teach me new games, I tell them not to go easy on me.

23 minutes ago, Varyag said:

Pretty much this. I would feel cheated if I knew my opponent was going easy on me.

Edit: Even when people teach me new games, I tell them not to go easy on me.

Fair enough. My apologies.

21 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Fly thematic squads or just fun squads you want to try. Not necessarily the most optimal ones.

Han and Luke with R2D2 on Luke, C3PO and Chewbacca with Han.

Or Luke, Wedge and Biggs versus Vader and some TIE Fighters.

Or an assortment of scum ships representing some pirates, or some Black Sun criminal gang, etc.

You know, "X-wing for fun". Not "Optimized X-wing for winning".

If you are copying some netlist or some build from Metawing, that is not Fly Casual.

And this post is the perfect example of how the term, which was originally coined and popularized in context with this game for competitive play, has been hijacked by what I like to call, the militant casual.

1 hour ago, Varyag said:

Pretty much this. I would feel cheated if I knew my opponent was going easy on me.

Edit: Even when people teach me new games, I tell them not to go easy on me.

Maybe, but there's a big gap between "go easy on the opponent" and "crush your enemies at all costs". Just because you're not simply giving the match to the opponent doesn't mean you have to treat it as if the fate of the universe rests on you winning the game.

Though I admit I may just be being a bit too sensitive to hyperbole. I was once part of a game community where some of the people felt that "destroying your enemies" meant actual, emotional destruction. These people could not themselves enjoy a game unless they caused their opponents to rage-quit or cry or otherwise not enjoy the game. To them, a game was more about ensuring there's a definite loser than having a definite winner.

I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but I'm just explaining that experiences with players like that may be one reason that talking about "showing no mercy" may rub some people the wrong way.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Maybe, but there's a big gap between "go easy on the opponent" and "crush your enemies at all costs". Just because you're not simply giving the match to the opponent doesn't mean you have to treat it as if the fate of the universe rests on you winning the game.

Though I admit I may just be being a bit too sensitive to hyperbole. I was once part of a game community where some of the people felt that "destroying your enemies" meant actual, emotional destruction. These people could not themselves enjoy a game unless they caused their opponents to rage-quit or cry or otherwise not enjoy the game. To them, a game was more about ensuring there's a definite loser than having a definite winner.

I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but I'm just explaining that experiences with players like that may be one reason that talking about "showing no mercy" may rub some people the wrong way.

There is a happy middle ground to be found. Most of my regular opponents and I play in "competitive mode" all the time, even if we're not playing top tier meta, and will take any in-game action required to win the game. And if we're actually practicing for an event, we'll even enforce proper timing and order. But because we are polite and friendly with each other, I find those games more enjoyable than most of the supposedly "casual" games I get drawn into.

5 hours ago, Varyag said:

I do not like the term "fly casual". Fly better. When it comes to the rules and trying to destroy my opponent, I show no mercy and expect none in return. Someone will remember a mistake that cost them a game far better than one where their opponent let slide; and they will not make that same mistake twice.

That being said, be respectful, polite, and provide your opponent with good conversation while you mercilessly hunt down and kill their starfighters.

That is pretty different from fly casual, so naturall you don't like it.

5 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I don't know. While I don't really live by it, that's the philosophy I think of myself as using. I grew up with the idea that you shouldn't let someone win. If someone wins, it should be fair and honest. Plus, I kinda see it as an insult to the other player if I'm not giving them the respect of trying, nor a good experience to learn from. I may end up being forgiving about small mistakes, but I'm still trying to play the best game I can.

4 hours ago, Varyag said:

Pretty much this. I would feel cheated if I knew my opponent was going easy on me.

I wouldn't mind playing you with this mentality. I would offer first to give you some leeway. But you will always have the option to decline - I know because I do.

In that regard I actually DO put you into a difficult situation: do you accept my offer and reject your principles for an advantage, or do you decline? It's your choice. That doesn't mean I don't respect you, more the opposite: I trust that you will make the decision you want to.

I try to bring my a-game, and I want to win against yours - even if I have to remind you of stuff because you're obviously not on your a-game in that moment.