[...] you did not raise the actual issue, which is incidental information.

But, he did... Didn't he?

Would this be a violation of the rule from page 9? Because in the process of measuring to the range 3 Tie Fighter, I'm also effectively measuring the range to the range 1 tie fighter.

Is that cheating?

The rules for measuring for a target lock exist to allow you to see if you are in range for a target lock. Is that what you did, or did you do something else?

Your opponent was right, you are free to, and probably should check to see if you are within range 3 of your target. Checking to see if you are within range 1 of your target is unnecessary.

Unnecessary or not, the rules are quite explicit - after declaring a target lock the player must measure range. Theres no qualifier or exemption stating 'unless it's obvious'

In the case I mentioned - particularly if I had followed the rules to the letter - there was no way I could have avoided gaining additional information which would have informed my decision when I took my action.

I'm a play fair kind of guy and some of the very best games I've played have been games I've lost - so I'm not averse to losing at all - but at the same time I'm a competitive bloke too, so I'll freely act upon that additional information as I received it through legal means.

The rules say that you measure, but that don't say how. maybe you could have measured range 3 to the target ship without measuring range 1 to the 3rd ship - or maybe not. If you could have, then the argument could be that you gained additional information by abusing the rules.

Either way, ask what the difference between what you did and simply doing a range check on the 3rd ship is. The latter is not allowed under the rules.

"The whole argument being made was that TL'ing something that is clearly out of range is illegal because it gains you additional information. But that isn't how the rules work based on Alex's response.But again if you don't like the question or answer I got then email FFG yourself, and post the response here.

But you didn't ask the guy about a target that was clearly out of range, you specifically asked about a target that appeared to be in range.

Unnecessary or not, the rules are quite explicit - after declaring a target lock the player must measure range. Theres no qualifier or exemption stating 'unless it's obvious'

Exactly.

There are people who seem to believe they can add criteria to the rules, that they can add a "unless it's obvious" check to the measurement rules. But it's pretty clear such a thing isn't allowed.

So anytime you're instructed to measure, you can and in fact must do so unless both sides agree.

There's a number of times I wouldn't bother measuring, but only after I ask the other person "range 1?" If he agrees then I go with it, but if there's any question then I have to measure, and clearly any information I gain about other ships when doing so is fair.

So if the example I used in my question is legal, then any range is also legal because again there is no 'unless it's obvious' criteria in the rules.

The rules say that you measure, but that don't say how. maybe you could have measured range 3 to the target ship without measuring range 1 to the 3rd ship - or maybe not. If you could have, then the argument could be that you gained additional information by abusing the rules.

Either way, ask what the difference between what you did and simply doing a range check on the 3rd ship is. The latter is not allowed under the rules.

The actual text of the rules says that you have to measure range for a target lock, and that if the chosen target is in range, you can't back out and pick something else. And that's actually all the rules have to say on the subject. You're objecting to a number of possible scenarios that obey the letter, but (debatably) not the spirit of the rule; you're worried (or rather concerned that other people might be worried) that someone might claim to be measuring a target lock, but that person is clearly trying to get some other piece of information through nefarious means.

Your posts here (I haven't been closely following the thread in the General forum after the first page or so, so I can't talk about your posts there) seem to be mostly about that spirit of the rules. You're carrying an assumption that the rule is supposed to restrict players' access to information, even though that's not actually what it says. So my question for you is, how is that interpretation still defensible? You now have word from On High that point of this rule is not to restrict players' access to information, but rather to encourage fast play.

The rules say that you measure, but that don't say how.

Yes they actually do, here's what the Standard rules say.

When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360° from the active ship. The active player may measure to see if an enemy ship is within range before committing to this action.

Then in the sidebar Range Ruler it says...

When the rules instruct a player to “measure the distance,” always orient the range ruler so that the Range 1 section touches the point of origin (usually the active ship) and the Range 3 section points toward (or touches) the intended target.

So there you have everything you need to know about how to measure.

In the FAQ the Competitive rules rules adds the following bits about TL.

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a different action.

And...

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.

That last one being the one I mentioned in my question to Alex, because that was the line people were using to say that gaining additional information was illegal.

maybe you could have measured range 3 to the target ship without measuring range 1 to the 3rd ship - or maybe not. If you could have, then the argument could be that you gained additional information by abusing the rules.

I made a very special point of setting up the situation so there was no way you could measure to the farther ship, without measuring the closer one. Because if you can put the ruler directly over a second ship and that's allowed, then clearly having the ruler near a second ship is also legal.

So gaining additional information in the process of checking range is never abusing the rules per Alex's email.

But you didn't ask the guy about a target that was clearly out of range, you specifically asked about a target that appeared to be in range.

Because once again there is nothing in the rules that define or even mention 'clearly out of range' the rules don't say you can only measure if you think the target may be in range. It says you can measure period.

The most common “abuse” of the target lock mechanic that I have experienced is when ships are at range 2 and a target lock is used and measured, which now gave the player the idea of where range 1 would be, so the person can then boost or barrel roll into range 1 with an extra action or even with other ships.

It’s annoying, but it is an unfortunate byproduct of how Target locks work. Lots of game rules and mechanics glean extra info and offer an edge, which isn’t even cheating, because both player can do it.

I have had players get annoyed when I want to measure to ensure a shot is range 1 or 2 when they just assume it is. As long as everyone follows the rules and gleans the same info it doesn’t feel like it is being abused to me. I will usually watch when my opponent does a target lock so I can see the range 1 and 2 general areas so I am getting something out of that additional info as well.

I am always trying to boost around rocks or other ships and when I don’t fit, not only do I get to take a different action, but that also sets up my next maneuver because I was able to judge the spacing better and of course know I can’t do the bank I was trying to fit. That feels like a similar level of “abuse”, albeit a bit lesser, than the Target Lock discussions and yet I haven’t seen Boost brought up at all.

I would agree that there would be a benefit to a Target Lock rule stating if the opponent cedes it then you can’t measure. At least that would prevent one of the bigger “information leaks” that Target Locks provide, BUT in the grand scheme of things I don’t know if this will be addressed as an area that needs fixing before something like bumping gets clarified.

I personally would much rather see the FFG guys spend their energy and time on balancing the ships and creating new stuff (and releasing an FAQ eventually) ,than having them have to create stricter rules or re-examine the mechanics of the game, which for the most part are solid.

So to very briefly summarize, does anyone think there is there a problem or abuse as long as both players can do it? I see the range info just like my opponent does and maybe it benefits him this turn, but maybe next turn will be the opposite, so in that sense does this really need addressing from an abuse standpoint?

The rules say that you measure, but that don't say how.

Yes they actually do, here's what the Standard rules say.

When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360° from the active ship. The active player may measure to see if an enemy ship is within range before committing to this action.

Then in the sidebar Range Ruler it says...

When the rules instruct a player to “measure the distance,” always orient the range ruler so that the Range 1 section touches the point of origin (usually the active ship) and the Range 3 section points toward (or touches) the intended target.

So there you have everything you need to know about how to measure.

In the FAQ the Competitive rules rules adds the following bits about TL.

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a different action.

And...

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.

That last one being the one I mentioned in my question to Alex, because that was the line people were using to say that gaining additional information was illegal.

Do you have to measure from the closest point of two ships, or can you check an arc when measuring for a target lock? If the initial measurement shows the ship to be outside of range 3 (i.e. the range ruler fits between the ships), can the range ruler still be used to collect other incidental information? These are things that people do in games or at least that other players are concerned about them doing. The rules for measuring for target locks are specific with regard to certain aspects of the process but general where some players want them to be specific.

The first part was in response to the post directly above mine.

With regard to the latter portion, there is a section of the rules that is often quoted about abusing the rules. This is why people are taking issue. You clearly don't, so that is probably why there is such a disconnect.

The rules say that you measure, but that don't say how

I don't have the rule book handy as I'm out and about, so I reserve the right to be wrong, but I'd be pretty certain that they stipulate that range is measured using a range ruler.

I'm not sure how else you could do it

Do you have to measure from the closest point of two ships, or can you check an arc when measuring for a target lock?

It depends. When you're checking for range due to an attack you have to check closest point to closest point. The rules make a point of stating that...

To measure range, place the Range 1 end of the range ruler so that it touches the closest part of the attacker’s base. Then point the ruler toward the closest part of the target ship’s base that is inside the attacker’s firing arc.

The "closest part" is bolded in the core rulebook. You also have to use closest point when checking for obstructed attacks. Target locks however don't say anything about that.

That said the FAQ does say "and only to the intended target." That and the other rules mean you have to point the ruler directly at that ship, so you can't angle it off to one side like you would if you were checking arc's.

With regard to the latter portion, there is a section of the rules that is often quoted about abusing the rules.

But the sections that deal with that kind of thing make it clear that it's up to the TO to decide such things. I have however said a number of times in the other thread that if I were a TO, and someone was constantly checking for TL's at range 5+ I'd give them a warning and ask them to stop checking.

Because doing so can a method of stalling or just general poor sportsmanship. But again that's a judgment call by the TO, and not something you can really codify in the rules.

To be clear, I'm simply debating what the rules actually say, and not trying to defend someone using a TL to check a ship that's 2 feet away, so they can see how close a different ship is.

Unnecessary or not, the rules are quite explicit - after declaring a target lock the player must measure range. Theres no qualifier or exemption stating 'unless it's obvious'

Exactly.There are people who seem to believe they can add criteria to the rules, that they can add a "unless it's obvious" check to the measurement rules. But it's pretty clear such a thing isn't allowed.So anytime you're instructed to measure, you can and in fact must do so unless both sides agree.There's a number of times I wouldn't bother measuring, but only after I ask the other person "range 1?" If he agrees then I go with it, but if there's any question then I have to measure, and clearly any information I gain about other ships when doing so is fair.So if the example I used in my question is legal, then any range is also legal because again there is no 'unless it's obvious' criteria in the rules.

So in point of fact, my reluctance to measure the range for my target lock because of my desire to 'play fair', caused me to break the rules.

Nice irony :-)

Guys let it go. When taking a TL you can plop the ruler on the board to measure distance to any other ship you declare. If that ship is in range you must take the lock. You can look at everything else that the range ruler information provides you. It's a relatively simple game with relatively simple rules. Let's seriously not turn every TL check into a TO judgement.

If someone wants to check TL range to a ship at Range 5 to get some other bit of information, then fine they are allowed to do it. Eventually they will accidentally have to take a lock on a ship they thought was outside Range 3 but wasn't. I mean how big a problem is this really?

The OP example was a good one, and Alex's response was a better one. Let's please just put this to bed.

With regard to the latter portion, there is a section of the rules that is often quoted about abusing the rules.

But the sections that deal with that kind of thing make it clear that it's up to the TO to decide such things. I have however said a number of times in the other thread that if I were a TO, and someone was constantly checking for TL's at range 5+ I'd give them a warning and ask them to stop checking.

Because doing so can a method of stalling or just general poor sportsmanship. But again that's a judgment call by the TO, and not something you can really codify in the rules.

To be clear, I'm simply debating what the rules actually say, and not trying to defend someone using a TL to check a ship that's 2 feet away, so they can see how close a different ship is.

Judging by the rules that you have provided, you are right. The issue is left is that people want to apply some kind of restriction that they would expect in a tournament environment, through a TO's discretionary call, to every game, but it doesn't look like everything from the rules is here and there isn't anything that allows for that.

but it doesn't look like everything from the rules is here and there isn't anything that allows for that.

I've quoted every relevant rule I can find. If there's one I'm missing I'd welcome anyone else to post it.

But more likely is that the rules just don't work like some people want them too. There's nothing I can do about that, but we could debate how the rules should work, or how they could be changed. But then you're starting to get into what the intent of the rules are, and based on Alex's email, the rules aren't intended to stop people from gaining additional information.

But the TO has the final say over most anything and if they feel someone is really abusing the target lock function they have ways they can deal with it.

Sorry. That 'doesn't' was not supposed to be there. Besides, I'm not sure that there anything relevant that isn't already here word-for-word.

Sorry. That 'doesn't' was not supposed to be there.

No problem, I will readily admit that it's possible I missed something. Wouldn't be the first time I did. I wasn't trying to be snarky in my comment, I was quite serious that I'd welcome someone to point out something I missed if I was missing something.

Because a number of people said that if you measure a TL and gain additional information from doing so, it's against the rules.

No, if you measure a target lock, you are going to gain additional information, thats how measuring works. We all know this and don't have a problem with it.

What is against the rules (page 2 of the tournament rules - sportsmanlike conduct) is to declare a target lock of something VERY clearly out of range for the specific purpose of gaining that information.

Perfect example of this happening occurred in my local store with "that guy" (who has been banned from the store..... not for this issue, though I'm certain it made the managers job easier) last night.

He declared a target lock, I'm guessing it was long range 5 or range 6 from his YT-2400. The manager, who was monitoring the game as

a) he had a reputation

b) he was playing against and "teaching" a new player.

The manager said, I know it's out of range, but because we're teaching, take the target lock anyway. It'll let us teach [new player] how target locks work as he doesn't have them on his ties and you haven't used one yet.

He responded with (before measuring). "How can I take the target lock, it's way out of range. I don't want the target lock, are you stupid?, I'm trying to work out if Dash will barrel roll, boost or focus for his HLC shot."

THAT situation is what is under discussion here, and what we have a problem with. This is the situation where measuring for a target lock is against the rules.

So, how do people feel about the normal (non-tournament) rules for target lock, where you can measure to every ship and then decide if you want to target lock or do something else?

So, how do people feel about the normal (non-tournament) rules for target lock, where you can measure to every ship and then decide if you want to target lock or do something else?

I feel that they are the rules, and so my personal feelings about the rules don't matter - because they are the rules

So, how do people feel about the normal (non-tournament) rules for target lock, where you can measure to every ship and then decide if you want to target lock or do something else?

Stupid waste of time and the "competitive rule set" should have just been the base rules. Allowing every permutation of a boost or barrel roll to be taken before a player just decides to focus instead is just an odd way for the games rules to function.

So, how do people feel about the normal (non-tournament) rules for target lock, where you can measure to every ship and then decide if you want to target lock or do something else?

If I ever run into anyone who plays like this, I'll let you know.

Hey guys, check this out:

Target Lock troubles? Tired of being accused of gleaming extra data when you're trying to do an innocent lock? Can't resist the temptation of having a range ruler in your hands?

I have a solution for you!

Opposing players always measure range for friendly TL's....sounds reasonable, right?

Hey guys, check this out:

Target Lock troubles? Tired of being accused of gleaming extra data when you're trying to do an innocent lock? Can't resist the temptation of having a range ruler in your hands?

I have a solution for you!

Opposing players always measure range for friendly TL's....sounds reasonable, right?

Actually that's a pretty fair and reasonable idea. I like it.

What is against the rules (page 2 of the tournament rules - sportsmanlike conduct) is to declare a target lock of something VERY clearly out of range for the specific purpose of gaining that information.

Sportsmanship is the purview of the TO, not the players. So while you could call a TO over and have him or her judge such a thing, it's not really against the rules like say taking an action while stressed is.

Players can't enforce sportsmanship issues, only the TO can.

This is the situation where measuring for a target lock is against the rules.

That is all about intentions, which again is up to the TO to deal with, not the rules. Alex makes it very clear that incidental information is not an issue so no only do we have the RAW, we actually know the RAI. Neither of which prevent someone from checking for a TL for any reason.

If you feel someone is only doing it to gain information they shouldn't have, that is once again not actually against the rules, but could be an issue of sportsmanship, which is part of what a TO needs to deal with.

We have the answer from Alex. If you don't like it then you can email him yourself, and see what he or Frank has to say.

Won't bother me in the least if they change their mind. But we have the answer, the fact that some people don't like it doesn't mean you get to twist the rules into something that stops it.