I do it way different than you guys. I stick the tool in the base, THEN plan the move. I mean honestly it makes no difference either way. In a game where you can pre-measure, what difference does a single milimeter make? It makes play easier to just stick it in there and then adjust it to the clicks you want.
Personally, I don't premeasure at all. I'm happy with "close enough!" when it comes to movement. If I didn't get to where I thought I'd be... Oh well 
Whem do you move ships/squadrons out of the way of the tool
If i read the rules right it says something to the effect of holding the tool up and eyeballing it.
I would say once your opponent starts to move stuff out of the way for the tool properly inserted or not he is committed
If your opponent does place the tool 1mm from the base he's risking bumping it into touching the base (like I did) then he should be committed to the move which is why I think FFG has the rule.In my game on Sunday there was an incident where I was trying to determine my ships course. I was trying to be careful when placing the tool next to my ship but at one point I accidentally engaged the tool into the ship. Although it was accidental I took it on the chin and committed to the move.
I don't think I was abusing the movement tool, just following the rules.
But the rule makes a mess of this. You just claim you bumped the tool, so it touched your ship base, however that is only 50% of the rule. The tool has to be parallel with the base too, so we now have an arguement.
Also, where do you suggest you move your ship to? The resting place of the tool after the bump? So now finishing our first arguement we'll have yet another.
I find this rule just doesn't seem to do what it sets out to do, it creates problems, more than it solves. I still think the KISS principle would be when you pick up the model is the best point to lock the move in, and just have players take their best efforts in avoiding moving game components. Then have a rule that if you bump a piece your opponent can move it back or has to agree that the ship is correctly positioned.
I think they were simply trying to avoid dithering/stalling by preventing the tool from being manipulated after being inserted into the notches. An indecisive player could, intentionally or unintentionally, stall a game out by inserting the tool and then proceeding to dither and hem and haw about the best distance and number of turns to make. I should know, I've been that guy.
As it is, I've been holding the tool roughly an inch or two above the insert slots, make my best judgement (with minimal dithering and moving and then moving ships back, another consequence of table-level commitment) , move the ship, and move on with the game.
Seriously, all this argument about milimeters is missing the forest for the trees. (Nearly) everyone here knows exactly what stalling for time looks like, if it happens, call it for what it is. If someone with steady hands is able to position the tool 1mm away from the inserts and make their move in a timely and clean manner, what is the freaking problem?
Good lord, some people could take a rule about shaking your opponent's hand and turn it into a debate. Premeasuring is fine, and it improves the game. Let it be.
Rowdy, you're reading somethign into the rules that simply isn't there.
One of the things that I enjoyed about x-wing vs other miniatures tournament games was the 'Fly Casual' ethos.
Armada should uphold that, even in a tournament setting.
40k is a poor example. You can now premeasure in Warhammer 40k.
You would be surprised the places and people that still don't allow it. I got tired of that game when I got beaten by a Rule that appeared in a back issue of White dwarf that no one had an available copy of. which basically nerfed the whole concept of my army. hundreds of hours spent painting, hundreds of dollars spent on figures, and I go play a game and get beaten by out of date rules.
If i was running an armada tournament, as soon as the Tool touched the base your were done premeasuring, finish inserting the tool and complete the move. if someone brings out a second base to do premeasuring, or even using a second tool without the range 0 section, i would put a stop to that REAL quick.
Eyeball it, make a move, get approval from your opponent until you both are in agreement, move on. a few MM either way is not going to change the game unless you are colliding. Like my last game
Me: Well, obviously if the VSD moved forward at it's speed one it would overlap the Corvette, so I am not even going to bother moving it. and i don't think I could clear it at speed 2. So lets make it simple and take our damage
Opponent: But i was a consular ship, on a diplomatic mission! *removes Corvette from play as it takes it's last hull damage*
I do it way different than you guys. I stick the tool in the base, THEN plan the move. I mean honestly it makes no difference either way. In a game where you can pre-measure, what difference does a single milimeter make? It makes play easier to just stick it in there and then adjust it to the clicks you want.
We do it this way on occasion, only at speeds 1 and maybe 2 though. We interpreted/assumed/understood that the rule was intended to keep the tool from adversely moving the model during the adjustments you make while planning. (That thing can flick around pretty easy if you get a bit careless with the clicking.) We say that there should be clearance enough between the tool and the base that minor movement of the tool will not bring it into contact with the base and potentially bump it out of position. "Minor" being a mutually understood term. Basically the tool should rest clearly next to your model. If your a bit butterfingered give yourself some extra room. Seriously, how the heck does anybody have problems with these things? :<
Also, if you aren't already doing this, the little 'L' angle markers they put in the box to mark out deployment zones make SUPER HANDY markers for bases of ships and squadrons while making maneuvers that may overlap. 
Rowdy, you're reading somethign into the rules that simply isn't there.
I'm not saying this is a hard and fast rule. It is obviously open to interpretation, hence why the tournament rules say if you feel your opponent is abusing the rule, call a TO to observe. And it leaves it open.
Once they release an FAQ/Errata I plan to send in an email asking if nudging the tool towards the base (as exampled in my picture) could be considered abuse. I'm only waiting because I've seen others post that right now most email replies are to wait for the FAQ.
Once they release an FAQ/Errata I plan to send in an email asking if nudging the tool towards the base (as exampled in my picture) could be considered abuse. I'm only waiting because I've seen others post that right now most email replies are to wait for the FAQ.
That's a terrible reason not to ask. If you ask it now, then it could make it into the FAQ.
Once they release an FAQ/Errata I plan to send in an email asking if nudging the tool towards the base (as exampled in my picture) could be considered abuse. I'm only waiting because I've seen others post that right now most email replies are to wait for the FAQ.
That's a terrible reason not to ask. If you ask it now, then it could make it into the FAQ.
As I said in the part of my post that you cut out, this isn't a hard and fast rule. It is open to interpretation (what does and doesn't constitute abuse, not the ability to pre-measure). I don't even expect a direct answer.
40k is a poor example. You can now premeasure in Warhammer 40k.
You would be surprised the places and people that still don't allow it. I got tired of that game when I got beaten by a Rule that appeared in a back issue of White dwarf that no one had an available copy of. which basically nerfed the whole concept of my army. hundreds of hours spent painting, hundreds of dollars spent on figures, and I go play a game and get beaten by out of date rules.
a good reason why 40k is a poor example of anything 
40k is a poor example. You can now premeasure in Warhammer 40k.
You would be surprised the places and people that still don't allow it. I got tired of that game when I got beaten by a Rule that appeared in a back issue of White dwarf that no one had an available copy of. which basically nerfed the whole concept of my army. hundreds of hours spent painting, hundreds of dollars spent on figures, and I go play a game and get beaten by out of date rules.
a good reason why 40k is a poor example of anything
(sigh) It used to be a fun game until they figured out that they could sell more models by writing intentionally unbalanced codices serially.
I was interpreting the only reason pushing the tool flush with the base was not allowed in premeasurement was because that seemed to be the means of 'locking in' / committing to that maneuver.
40k is a poor example. You can now premeasure in Warhammer 40k.
You would be surprised the places and people that still don't allow it. I got tired of that game when I got beaten by a Rule that appeared in a back issue of White dwarf that no one had an available copy of. which basically nerfed the whole concept of my army. hundreds of hours spent painting, hundreds of dollars spent on figures, and I go play a game and get beaten by out of date rules.
a good reason why 40k is a poor example of anything
(sigh) It used to be a fun game until they figured out that they could sell more models by writing intentionally unbalanced codices serially.
Tell me about it
I was having fun with my 5th ed spess mehrines with the awesome looking double twin-linked autocannon dreadnoughts tearing up the then transport heavy meta.
Then out come gray knights. They get cannon dreads with psy cannon ammo, strictly superior for a similar cost....okay, I said
Then came blood angels with the their superior EVERYTHING and I never played again
the compleete opposite of the OP. i like pre measuring. we use things like: "i place this squadron so that it is in range 1 of this enemy squad, but not in range of this other enemy squad.". For large parts this prevents the discussion if something is in range or not which only possibly results in anger and frustration. its about a fun game and not about "haha, you touched that model now you have to make a sh*tty move with it.".
40k is a poor example. You can now premeasure in Warhammer 40k.
You would be surprised the places and people that still don't allow it. I got tired of that game when I got beaten by a Rule that appeared in a back issue of White dwarf that no one had an available copy of. which basically nerfed the whole concept of my army. hundreds of hours spent painting, hundreds of dollars spent on figures, and I go play a game and get beaten by out of date rules.
a good reason why 40k is a poor example of anything
(sigh) It used to be a fun game until they figured out that they could sell more models by writing intentionally unbalanced codices serially.
Tell me about it
I was having fun with my 5th ed spess mehrines with the awesome looking double twin-linked autocannon dreadnoughts tearing up the then transport heavy meta.
Then out come gray knights. They get cannon dreads with psy cannon ammo, strictly superior for a similar cost....okay, I said
Then came blood angels with the their superior EVERYTHING and I never played again
Dark Angels.
First codex up, immediately overshadowed by the following Space Marine Codex, rinse/repeat for three or more generations.
So I gave up and started doing Necrons (who I liked from the moment I heard of them anyway). At least they've been acceptable or overpowered each iteration.
But yeah, GW prices, writing, and marketing methods have caused me to shun them.
But I'll always love my metal skeletons. (sniff)
FFG wins all the points for caring about fun, balance, and managing to generate sales with some degree of integrity.
FFG really sets the bar for how a modern gaming company should handle games and organized play. GW is just a backwards, outdated company swimming against the current and being carried slowly downstream.
FFG really sets the bar for how a modern gaming company should handle games and organized play. GW is just a backwards, outdated company swimming against the current and being carried slowly downstream.
Yep! GW is becoming a shining example of how not to run a successful game and minis maker. Sadly, they have always seen their rules as a marketing device to sell their minis.
FFG minis are good: not as mind numbingly good as GW's, but good. FFG games are much more balanced, and are insanely fun.
Given time, FFG minis are likely to get better and better.
A lot of these complications are from poor reading of the rules, using real world logic in an abstract game, guess the intent of a rule, and house rule assumption (like moving things out of the way of a template).
The rule is clear. Those of you trained to read rules or laws see this, I am sure. Fully putting the guides in cannot be done in premeasure. Pre measure can be considered abused when used as a stalling tactic or opponent interruption. That is all. There is nothing else. Why the inserted guide is the chosen cut off is irrelevant. How accurate your pre measure is is irrelevant. Moving things out of the templates way is irrelevant (since that isn't how it should be done).
We can, and are, debating the merits of it. But there can be no debate about clarity. It is very clear. It only seems muddled when the reader tries to insert logic, intent, relative merit, etc. into the reading.
A lot of these complications are from poor reading of the rules, using real world logic in an abstract game, guess the intent of a rule, and house rule assumption (like moving things out of the way of a template).
The rule is clear. Those of you trained to read rules or laws see this, I am sure. Fully putting the guides in cannot be done in premeasure. Pre measure can be considered abused when used as a stalling tactic or opponent interruption. That is all. There is nothing else. Why the inserted guide is the chosen cut off is irrelevant. How accurate your pre measure is is irrelevant. Moving things out of the templates way is irrelevant (since that isn't how it should be done).
We can, and are, debating the merits of it. But there can be no debate about clarity. It is very clear. It only seems muddled when the reader tries to insert logic, intent, relative merit, etc. into the reading.
Well that and there is a lot to absorb. I've read and reread both rulebooks, and I'm still getting things wrong in-game because I've only played a few games and familiarity is still sinking in.
But hey, that's why we have this place. To ask questions, make observations, and discuss it all.
And that's a good thing.
A lot of these complications are from poor reading of the rules, using real world logic in an abstract game, guess the intent of a rule, and house rule assumption (like moving things out of the way of a template).
The rule is clear. Those of you trained to read rules or laws see this, I am sure. Fully putting the guides in cannot be done in premeasure. Pre measure can be considered abused when used as a stalling tactic or opponent interruption. That is all. There is nothing else. Why the inserted guide is the chosen cut off is irrelevant. How accurate your pre measure is is irrelevant. Moving things out of the templates way is irrelevant (since that isn't how it should be done).
We can, and are, debating the merits of it. But there can be no debate about clarity. It is very clear. It only seems muddled when the reader tries to insert logic, intent, relative merit, etc. into the reading.
You are correct.
The rules are very clear and intent, while nice to know, is irrelevant to the actual rule regarding premeasurement.
A lot of these complications are from poor reading of the rules, using real world logic in an abstract game, guess the intent of a rule, and house rule assumption (like moving things out of the way of a template).
The rule is clear. Those of you trained to read rules or laws see this, I am sure. Fully putting the guides in cannot be done in premeasure. Pre measure can be considered abused when used as a stalling tactic or opponent interruption. That is all. There is nothing else. Why the inserted guide is the chosen cut off is irrelevant. How accurate your pre measure is is irrelevant. Moving things out of the templates way is irrelevant (since that isn't how it should be done).
We can, and are, debating the merits of it. But there can be no debate about clarity. It is very clear. It only seems muddled when the reader tries to insert logic, intent, relative merit, etc. into the reading.
Well that and there is a lot to absorb. I've read and reread both rulebooks, and I'm still getting things wrong in-game because I've only played a few games and familiarity is still sinking in.
But hey, that's why we have this place. To ask questions, make observations, and discuss it all.
And that's a good thing.
I could be wrong, but I think he is only talking about the premeasurement rule, not all rules from 2 rule books.
the compleete opposite of the OP. i like pre measuring. we use things like: "i place this squadron so that it is in range 1 of this enemy squad, but not in range of this other enemy squad.". For large parts this prevents the discussion if something is in range or not which only possibly results in anger and frustration. its about a fun game and not about "haha, you touched that model now you have to make a sh*tty move with it.".
We do intent play style
"This squadron is engaged with squad A but not squad B" even though physical the place could be close
I also state "I am gonna move now" and start moving squads out of the way of the Tool