I played against Trevor before and had a grat time getting beat. I tried out a jaina triple twin mando squad and he beat me with gowk, mace, tow cable, and the ol doctor. He set up a massive force push 3 i was not expected and I learned how to use that darn r2-d2.

Maybe you have mistaken casual for not competitive. The most competitive games I have played in are the most fun games I have played in. It just so happens that with a few changes to the rules balance is more easily found in the squads. My squad that I will take is going to be a great squad and I want to win. However, it will be a fun squad.

Legends events that I have been a part of have been very competitive, just casual in the sense that armies are not abused and if they are they were taken care of pretty quickly.

All minis formats are meant to be fun.

Different events are fun for some and not for others.


It's clear that we've split into 2 separate conversations. That's totally cool.

So as I said before - if all you want are different rules, then jump on that other thread and we'll all contribute to come up with an alternate rules format.

This was meant for the more casual PLAYERS, with rules made by them.


Nothing saying we can't do both. Heck I love alternate rules formats. (TILE WARS anyone?)

In this instance I think Casual can be more defined as "non-abused"

Casual and competitive are not directly related terms, and nearly everyone on this site who identify themselves as "casual" aren't really using the term correctly. A casual player/gamer is someone who cares more about having fun gameplay than deep gameplay, and don't want to spend a whole bunch of time learning the ins and outs of the game. They can be just as competitive when they are playing a game as hardcore players, and hardcore players (those who DO invest a lot of time in a game and prefer deep, complex gameplay) can be just as happy losing as winning.

Casual/hardcore is a spectrum where one side wants a simple, easy, light game while the other side wants a deep, complex, heavy game (and obviously the entire spectrum wants a FUN game). Dixit and Bejeweled are examples of "casual" games, while Twilight Struggle and Civ V are "hardcore" games.

Non-competitive/competitive is a different spectrum where on one side just enjoying the game is more important, while on the other side winning is more important (or where winning is a major or primary source of enjoyment).

You can be a competitive Bejeweled player or a non-competitive Twilight Struggle player.

Collectible games like SWM can often be either casual or hardcore depending on the actual piece design, squads/decks being played, and any special rules for the game (like Gambit).


If you make a bunch of rule changes/additions to a game, it definitely doesn't make it more casual friendly (since it's actually adding complexity, not taking it away), so I wouldn't necessarily call a new format or tournament that is just a bunch of new rules tacked onto the standard gameplay "casual". I don't really know what I would call it. "Casual" would be something like Minis Madness, where you are specifically playing with light and easy to use squads. I don't think "non-competitive" is the right word either, because as has been stated, the people playing will want to win as much as anybody else.


It's all just semantics and isn't really important in this context, I don't think. But that's probably where the confusion between "casual"/"competitive" is coming from. They aren't really talking about the same thing. I think the attempt of this format/tournament is to make it more casual, i.e. "lighter", but that isn't necessarily more or less competitive. Just simpler.

Of course, another apparent goal is to just cut out things that some people dislike. Shooters getting a negative modifier to attack actually makes the game LESS casual and more hardcore, but it weakens shooters, which is something people seem to like. Same with letting Force Users open doors and changing Override to Manual Override. If you want the game to be about Jedi/Sith and uniques instead of bounty hunters and Stormtroopers, that's totally cool, but isn't really a concern on the casual/hardcore spectrum. It's just wanting a different type of game. Lots of casual players love playing swarms of non-uniques, and are drawn to the game so they can see armies of Rebel Troopers fight Stormtroopers, or Battle Droids fight Gungans.

I understand Tim's idea (now), but eliminating all tournament players would drastically reduce the pool of possible participants.

Maybe when the vocal casual players eliminate the NPEs, they can decide if this will be an "Alternative Rules" event or not.

PS Also if we have "us vs. them" playing together it could smooth future tensions. Meeting somebody helps people understand that the "other guy" is not the major tool you thought he was. (right Jack?)

I do agree with this.

I remember the first year I met Jack, he complained about the salad options at Hooters because they were all made with iceberg lettuce and he went on about how few nutrients are in iceberg. Totally changed how I saw him.

oh ok, I gotcha, well than I think that is awesome.
and I am down for something like that. I also think that the big wig players can easily throw together a fun squad that they can play with knowing it is not supposed to be geared to winning.

Anyone that expects good salad options at Hooters should be looked down upon for that expectation. Lol

Jack thought the salad options at The Tilted Kilt were terrible also. (I think he wasn't really paying attention to the salads )

I'm a guy and the only thing I expect from Hooters in Dysentery and Hepatitis.