Aside from the 2x2 corner or edges would it b3 safe to say you can use a range rulers place an asteroid in a specific spot.

Exmple. I want an asteroid on the outside edge of sontir for cover after a 5 forward/boost left/right from starting position.

Would it be fair if i use two rulers to set its exact location? Just curios on your thoughts.

Of course it is, how else would you measure the range versus the range restrictions?

I'm obviously a minimalist when it comes to what you're allowed to measure. To my mind, you can measure what you need to measure - specifically, is the asteroid within range 2 of the edge, or range 1 of another rock. Nothing else should be allowed.

That said, people are taking some very permissive views on the use of templates before the game starts. Unless/until FFG clarifies it, it seems that up until the first planning phase pretty much anything goes. I don't see that using the range ruler to position your asteroids is any worse than using the maneuver templates to preplan your first moves.

I'm obviously a minimalist when it comes to what you're allowed to measure. To my mind, you can measure what you need to measure - specifically, is the asteroid within range 2 of the edge, or range 1 of another rock. Nothing else should be allowed.

That said, people are taking some very permissive views on the use of templates before the game starts. Unless/until FFG clarifies it, it seems that up until the first planning phase pretty much anything goes. I don't see that using the range ruler to position your asteroids is any worse than using the maneuver templates to preplan your first moves.

I am the same way which is why i posted to get an opinion.

Asteroids are placed before ships, correct?

Also, keep in mind that 5 range is MUCH longer than the 5 forward movement template. The 5 forward template is about as long as range 2.5.

You can easily convert from range ruler to maneuver templates. But you really don't even have to do that. With the way people seem to be taking it, it seems that you could actually use the ship and maneuver templates during asteroid placement.

While the Tournament Rules do not allow setup templates they specifically note that you are permitted to use range rulers and/or other X-Wing components during setup.

Based upon that ruling I would say it is 100% permissible to use range rulers while placing asteroids.

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

Paul used the range ruler to measure the exact placement of his first asteroid in the World Championship, and there wasn't any issue. I assume the TO was watching the board the entire time, and didn't take any exception.

To add one more thing, Paul has stated that his opening strategy was based on the asteroid placement.

You pretty much have to use the Range Ruler when setting up asteroids. After all they can't be within R2 from the edge and need to have at least R1 between rocks. Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3.

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

Let's say an asteroid is already placed and I want to place another one just far enough away that a third asteroid can't be placed between the first two. I'm doing this so I keep things spread out strategically. Is that cheating because I'm not just checking to see what range 1 is?

Edit: Or what if I use my range ruler to measure range 3 to the edge so that I know an asteroid can't be placed between it and the edge opening up a wider space to use. I didn't use it to measure range 2 to the edge or range 1 to another asteroid. Does that go against the spirit of good sportsmanship?

Oh great, another thread that is going to go down the "good sportsmanship" rabbit hole.

Let's say an asteroid is already placed and I want to place another one just far enough away that a third asteroid can't be placed between the first two. I'm doing this so I keep things spread out strategically. Is that cheating because I'm not just checking to see what range 1 is?

Edit: Or what if I use my range ruler to measure range 3 to the edge so that I know an asteroid can't be placed between it and the edge opening up a wider space to use. I didn't use it to measure range 2 to the edge or range 1 to another asteroid. Does that go against the spirit of good sportsmanship?

Yes.

Yes.

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

So I guess you don't plan out your overall strategy, and just randomly place your asteroids?

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

So I guess you don't plan out your overall strategy, and just randomly place your asteroids?

Seeing as I can't place half of them, I'll put down the first one or two where I'd like them to roughly be. But then again, my squad builds aren't dependant on asteroid placement to win.

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

So I guess you don't plan out your overall strategy, and just randomly place your asteroids?

No. That isn't what he said at all. He is simply saying you cannot use the measuring device to know 100% without a doubt that you are placing that asteroid exactly where it is most strategically beneficial to you.

Do you not try to approximate in your mind where your maneuvers are going to put your various ships? You cannot put maneuvers on the board during the planning phase, but that doesn't mean you just randomly select maneuvers, does it?

Let's say an asteroid is already placed and I want to place another one just far enough away that a third asteroid can't be placed between the first two. I'm doing this so I keep things spread out strategically. Is that cheating because I'm not just checking to see what range 1 is?

Edit: Or what if I use my range ruler to measure range 3 to the edge so that I know an asteroid can't be placed between it and the edge opening up a wider space to use. I didn't use it to measure range 2 to the edge or range 1 to another asteroid. Does that go against the spirit of good sportsmanship?

Yes.

Yes.

Alright then. It appears my work on this planet is finished so I must now return to my home on the planet Zarkon.

How did this suddenly evolve into a curious supposition that I play entirely randomly?

To let this continue to be getting close to personal here... yes, I have an excellent sense of spatial awareness. I can generally know, all up in my brain case, where any given maneuver is going to have any given ship end up.

How did this suddenly evolve into a curious supposition that I play entirely randomly?

To let this continue to be getting close to personal here... yes, I have an excellent sense of spatial awareness. I can generally know, all up in my brain case, where any given maneuver is going to have any given ship end up.

To be clear nothing I'm discussing should be construed as an attack on you or your abilities.

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

Measuring is one of the things FFG has been maddeningly inconsistent on. By all the evidence we have, they've decided that prior to the first Planning Phase, you can do pretty much anything you want with templates and measuring regardless of whether that would be legal once the game starts or not.

I don't especially like it, but I think it's a stretch to call it cheating given the preponderance of evidence.

How did this suddenly evolve into a curious supposition that I play entirely randomly?

To let this continue to be getting close to personal here... yes, I have an excellent sense of spatial awareness. I can generally know, all up in my brain case, where any given maneuver is going to have any given ship end up.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the guy that said you must place asteroids randomly since you cannot measure them. My question to him was whether his maneuvers are random or not since he cannot measure them before deciding.

Measuring is one of the things FFG has been maddeningly inconsistent on. By all the evidence we have, they've decided that prior to the first Planning Phase, you can do pretty much anything you want with templates and measuring regardless of whether that would be legal once the game starts or not.

I don't especially like it, but I think it's a stretch to call it cheating given the preponderance of evidence.

I guess I see whipping out the range ruler to check multiple target lock options to be quite a different thing than when using the range ruler to be methodical with asteroid placement.

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating. For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model. If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.

So X-wing's more lackadaisical approach to measuring feels off to a lot of experienced minis gamers. To that background, statements like "Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3." are flat-out cheating. You can indeed control your ruler so that you don't "accidentally" measure more than you should.

And again, it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if they were consistent. We still don't have tight rules that cover the timing on measuring, action declaration, and takebacks (for example, we all know you can undo a TL if the target isn't in range, but what if I declare Squad Leader and the recipient has no TL targets in range, and has already Focused?). The fact that actions that would be absolutely incontrovertibly cheating once the first planning phase begins are perfectly fine a few seconds before that is also strange.

So agree or not, there's plenty of reason for the "why".

I guess I see whipping out the range ruler to check multiple target lock options to be quite a different thing than when using the range ruler to be methodical with asteroid placement.

It comes down to a minimalist interpretation of what you can measure. You have to know whether the rock is within Range 1-2 of the edge, or whether it's within range 1 of another rock. Any measurement should provide the minimal amount of information necessary to perform that verification.

The fact that you are measuring to see if an asteroid is within Range 2 of an edge shouldn't mean that you can measure anything you want concerning that asteroid.

But it seems that there's no limit on it, hence the inconsistency.

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating. For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model. If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.

So X-wing's more lackadaisical approach to measuring feels off to a lot of experienced minis gamers. To that background, statements like "Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3." are flat-out cheating. You can indeed control your ruler so that you don't "accidentally" measure more than you should.

And again, it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if they were consistent. We still don't have tight rules that cover the timing on measuring, action declaration, and takebacks (for example, we all know you can undo a TL if the target isn't in range, but what if I declare Squad Leader and the recipient has no TL targets in range, and has already Focused?). The fact that actions that would be absolutely incontrovertibly cheating once the first planning phase begins are perfectly fine a few seconds before that is also strange.

So agree or not, there's plenty of reason for the "why".

Thank you. That helps give some interesting perspective.

That being said I guess I see this issue as being very much the same as using your full range 3 ruler to precisely space a couple of your ships apart. Now while I have never done that the rules expressly support it.

Frankly I'm still stunned that this topic went this direction.