I was recently at a tournament where in the final game one of the players was declaring target locks that were CLEARLY too far (like nearly double the range ruler) just so that he could put the ruler down nearby other ships that he wanted to barrel roll/boost away from to keep them at range 3. Basically he was abusing the rule that says you can use the range ruler to check for target lock range in the activation phase. In the current rules if you are out of range you just choose another action.

This was the first time I had seen this in over a year of playing and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope its not a prevalent practice. If it was, I think a good solution would be to make it so that if you declare a target lock and the target is out of range you use your action. Maybe its kind of harsh, but it would draw a hard line around it instead of it being a TO's discretion.

1. It's not prevalent. (thank goodness) well at least not prevalent in Australia.

2. It is abusing a loop hole in the rules..... and that in and of itself is against the rules. Call the TO over, point out the ship he tried to target lock onto and let the TO deal with it.

*shrug* Much like with bumping and the Fortress, I do not believe it's worth punishing those who use it correctly to stop the few who do abuse it.

2. It is abusing a loop hole in the rules..... and that in and of itself is against the rules. Call the TO over, point out the ship he tried to target lock onto and let the TO deal with it.

Care to point this out? I ask out of honest curiosity, because the only thing I can think of that mentions something like this is the rule against infinite combos. You might, theoretically, get him on slow play (ie. he's wasting time with each pointless Target Lock attempt), but other than that I can't think of many ways a TO could reasonably intervene.

2. It is abusing a loop hole in the rules..... and that in and of itself is against the rules. Call the TO over, point out the ship he tried to target lock onto and let the TO deal with it.

Care to point this out? I ask out of honest curiosity, because the only thing I can think of that mentions something like this is the rule against infinite combos. You might, theoretically, get him on slow play (ie. he's wasting time with each pointless Target Lock attempt), but other than that I can't think of many ways a TO could reasonably intervene.

You are allowed to measure distance between ships only when a rule or ability requires you to do so. If you try to lock something that is clearly out of range (A) so that you can try to measure to something that is in range (B), then you're measuring to B without the rules letting you. At the very least, it's bad sportsmanship, and IMHO it rises to the level of outright cheating. If I happened to randomly drop my range ruler on the board to do this it would be cheating; measuring to something you obviously don't need to measure to in order to have the excuse to randomly drop your range ruler doesn't change that.

There is a certain amount of incidental extra information which will come from any measurement. Declaring an action you know is impossible to complete, which will have no drawback in the game, is not providing incidental information.

Thankfully, I've never had to deal with this in either my games or events. But here's my solution:

1. As a TO, I'll tell them to stop.

2. As a player, call the TO to deal with it.

3. As a player, when they declare the lock, say "Well, that's obviously in range - no need to measure it." Put them in the hilarious position of making them argue that they need to measure it.

4. Shrug and live with it. If the TO doesn't see fit to stop it, and he's enough of an ass to shamelessly argue that something they're trying to do MIGHT be out of range, there's probably nothing for you to do.

Still waiting for a rule citation.

I had a similar situation - opponent declared TL far out of range for checking distance. When I called TO, he said that rules allow that.

Still waiting for a rule citation.

FAQ, page 9, Measuring Range:

Players may only measure range and/or use the range ruler to determine whether a ship is inside or outside of a firing arc at the following times:

...

• After declaring the intended target of a target lock action, the active player may measure range to the intended target, and only to the intended target.

If you're using the target lock action to measure range to another target, then you're breaking the rules. There is a certain amount of unavoidable incidental information; taking actions which are specifically aimed at creating "incidental" information is intentionally measuring to a ship other than the intended target.

Quick, someone call the thought police! People have hidden intentions to gain information!

Seriously, this is laughable. If the guy isn't pointing the ruler in the general direction of the out-of-range ship, that's one thing. Gaining incidental information from a perfectly legal play? Stop wasting your energy, and don't bother wasting the TO's time. You can't punish people for what's going on in their head.

Heaven help you all the first time someone measures their control area in Warmachine. XD

Yup a loop hole. The one thing you can be sure of is that they have to put the range ruler in the direction of the declared ship. So they cannot get a 360 measurement much like the active ship in the combat phase. But yes when ever a range ruler comes out I watch it closely so I can see the positioning for other ships.

Still waiting for a rule citation.

FAQ, page 9, Measuring Range:

Players may only measure range and/or use the range ruler to determine whether a ship is inside or outside of a firing arc at the following times:

...

• After declaring the intended target of a target lock action, the active player may measure range to the intended target, and only to the intended target.

If you're using the target lock action to measure range to another target, then you're breaking the rules. There is a certain amount of unavoidable incidental information; taking actions which are specifically aimed at creating "incidental" information is intentionally measuring to a ship other than the intended target.

And? I can still measure to a ship that's way out of range for the target lock. So thanks for telling us we have to point the ruler to the ship we declared, which we knew.

The whole point of using this "thing" is to measure for stuff in between anyway.

Still waiting for a rule citation.

FAQ, page 9, Measuring Range:

Players may only measure range and/or use the range ruler to determine whether a ship is inside or outside of a firing arc at the following times:

...

• After declaring the intended target of a target lock action, the active player may measure range to the intended target, and only to the intended target.

If you're using the target lock action to measure range to another target, then you're breaking the rules. There is a certain amount of unavoidable incidental information; taking actions which are specifically aimed at creating "incidental" information is intentionally measuring to a ship other than the intended target.

And? I can still measure to a ship that's way out of range for the target lock. So thanks for telling us we have to point the ruler to the ship we declared, which we knew.

The whole point of using this "thing" is to measure for stuff in between anyway.

The range ruler works both ways. If your opponent is placing down a range ruler take note of what else is in range and use that information as well. You can even ask to remeasure if you need a second look.

We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with topics on the things not scum-related.

As long as the ruler is pointing in the direction of the intended ship this is a perfectly legal tactic. There is nothing wrong with it. Move along.

And this is why the rules should just let people measure ranges.

And this is why the rules should just let people measure ranges.

Any idea what the thinking is with not allowing measuring in the first place?

Have to agree this is a bit silly

Having come in from Warmachine, I'm 100% accustomed to games with pre-measuring tricks and X-wing really doesn't suffer from having it as well. The rules strictly define the manner in which this target-lock range check can be preformed (only during TL, only between the ship preforming the action and the ship targeted), making it so it's not a loophole so much as an actual rule written into the game itself

*shrug* Much like with bumping and the Fortress, I do not believe it's worth punishing those who use it correctly to stop the few who do abuse it.

2. It is abusing a loop hole in the rules..... and that in and of itself is against the rules. Call the TO over, point out the ship he tried to target lock onto and let the TO deal with it.

Care to point this out? I ask out of honest curiosity, because the only thing I can think of that mentions something like this is the rule against infinite combos. You might, theoretically, get him on slow play (ie. he's wasting time with each pointless Target Lock attempt), but other than that I can't think of many ways a TO could reasonably intervene.

it is the "infinite combo rule" but if you have a close look at the rule

(pg 1 of the tourney rules)

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentional stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate behaviour, treating a player with a lack of courtesy of respect, etc. ...

The rule covers a lot more than infinite combos and that is just 1 example, that is deliberately left open (through etc.) so that TO has the discretion and the power to deal with situations as they occur. In the case of measuring a target lock on something WELL out of range in order to gain information that they should not have access to, that certainly comes under abusing the rules.

I've seen players use this tactic to get around not being able to pre-measure on a few occasions. It is a small peeve of mine tbo, which is why I love the D&D attack wing approach. If you declare an action that you cannot complete...you lose your action! I would love to see that rule port over to X-Wing.

The problem is, policing this "loophole" is difficult.

What if the opponent legimately thinks that TL is in Range or is close to being in range? Their eye for range might not be as good as yours, and all of a sudden you are being overly critical of a situation that might be an honest players mistake/lack of measuring skill.

Also, I for one don't think it is a "loophole", because that word implies a negative affect. It is more just, "an affect within the rules that some people disagree with." A lot of people DO think it is okay. Those who disagree with it just get to use words that make it sound more back-handy than it really is.

As long as the player is measuring only to that ship, and only to see if the TL is legal (which does NOT include measuring for which Range band you are in, and does NOT include lining up your front arc. Meaning, you can only measure closest point of your ship to closest point of the opposing ship), then I see no problem with gaining additional information about the ships around you, albeit, you don't always gain a whole lot if you are following the rules for TL range checking pretty well. it's really when the rules are bent that a problem occurs.

There is a huge grey area in this situation. Soem players are excellent judges of distance, some are awful. I lean more towards the awful category. I will almost always measure things that might seem obvious to others, because I've made the mistake multiple times when it looked like nobody had a shot, and then we measure and find out "Oh, they DO have a shot". So while I understand the OP is saying that it was CLEARLY beyond any possibility of range 3... it really boils down to the situation.

Since range 4 and 5 DO exist in the game, I'd say measuring a ship that falls into range 4 is fine. Range 5 or more is bad sportsmanship 9 times out of 10, the 10th time being someone with depth perception issues. It is legal though, but you have to watch and make sure they ONLY point the ruler at the other ship, and that they don't let it linger on the table, because then it woudl appear they are measuring OTHER things. If the placement of the ruler was a simple, "Ok yup obviously out of range" and it was picked up within a split second, then I wouldn't think they were measuring anything else. But if they leave it there and carefully look at other things with it down... then I'd say that is cheating.

There is a huge grey area in this situation. Soem players are excellent judges of distance, some are awful. I lean more towards the awful category. I will almost always measure things that might seem obvious to others, ...

You and me both buddy. I just simply don't get to play enough to really have a solid grasp on the various distances, which is one reason you won't see me running Dash in a tourney, because I wouldn't have any idea if you were in the "donut-hole" until we started measuring.

Hopefully, no one thinks I'm abusing the TL rule when I try to TL something at range 4.

Honestly there are a lot of reasons to want to measure range to a target you know is out of range, without the advantage of "accidentally" measuring to other ships. If I BR or boost will I be in range? keeping in mind the range for next turns maneuver? both are fully valid imo. Now if I notice my opponent specifically watching for other ship ranges and basically ignoring the target ship range I would ask him to stop or call the TO.

There is a huge grey area in this situation. Soem players are excellent judges of distance, some are awful. I lean more towards the awful category. I will almost always measure things that might seem obvious to others, ...

You and me both buddy. I just simply don't get to play enough to really have a solid grasp on the various distances, which is one reason you won't see me running Dash in a tourney, because I wouldn't have any idea if you were in the "donut-hole" until we started measuring.

Hopefully, no one thinks I'm abusing the TL rule when I try to TL something at range 4.

I am a horrible judge of distance as well (I blame my terrible depth perception ) and while I'll definitely TL to check range to an intended target, there are many times I'll legitimately believe I'll have a target-lock only to be out by a fraction of a millimeter

I wouldn't want anyone penalized for using the rule as intended, either because the distance just isn't there or even to check range to the intended target. It is a much needed advantage for those of us running with severely outdated prescriptions (stupid back-logged specialist) and needing to counter that super Dash that just boosted for the first turn shot.

Honestly there are a lot of reasons to want to measure range to a target you know is out of range, without the advantage of "accidentally" measuring to other ships. If I BR or boost will I be in range? keeping in mind the range for next turns maneuver? both are fully valid imo. Now if I notice my opponent specifically watching for other ship ranges and basically ignoring the target ship range I would ask him to stop or call the TO.

This right here is my primary use of the so called "trick." I ran R3-A2 Luke at a local SC yesterday and was positioning my squad to cover itself from the inevitable super-dash PTL boost + target-lock into first turn shot, and was able to course correct my roughly 0.5 centimeter error with a good ole engine upgrade

And this is why the rules should just let people measure ranges.

Any idea what the thinking is with not allowing measuring in the first place?

Probably to stop you using it to predict barrel rolls or something. Casualwise I've always allowed completely free use of the Range Ruler (including testing arcs with it), and it hasn't really affected anything, but then again, none of us are trying to cheat.

We used to allow premeasuring of Boost and Barrel Roll too before Echo was a thing.

I just wanted to reinforce that this guy was not trying to target lock people at range 4 or even 5. We're talking like range 6 7 and 8. It was very obvious that there was no way the target would be in range. And he would leave the ruler down for quite a while assessing other ships.

I understand that you glean information from every target lock, and I'm definitely okay with target locks where the range is pretty close but just not quite there. It just seemed like this guy was blatantly abusing the 'fly casual' mindset to see how much he could get an advantage.