So I apologize if my search-fu is weak, but the only threads I found regarding the one-tool rule were from prior to the current tournament rules (when its wording was different). As a reminder, the one-tool rule is currently written as:

One-Tool Rule: A player can only use one tool at a time when measuring range, distance, or movement. A tool is defined as the range ruler, the maneuver tool, or another component such as a token. This rule is intended to prevent slow play, as defined on page 5.

This poses some questions from me and our local players:

1. Can you measure with one tool, put down your finger at a specific point along that tool, remove the tool, and then measure from your finger using a new tool? This feels wrong to me, as your finger is effectively acting as a stand-in token or a lingering element of the last measurement tool, resulting in 2+ components being on the table even if one of those components is made of bones and meat and not cardboard.
2. Regarding squadrons in particular: it seems fairly common for players to announce their intention with squadrons and then move them up and then shuffle them around a little bit to get the desired effect (example: "I want to move this X-Wing to engage those two TIE Bombers but remain outside of engaging Soontir Fel"). I've done squadron movements like this myself. However, the only way to do this by the rules of Armada is to measure range from all relevant squadrons to check for engagement ranges, keep those marked somehow (using fingers and/or tokens) and then moving the squadron finally, which would require using the range ruler on a table with 1+ tokens/fingers/whatever already present on it. Does this break the one-tool rule?
3. Regarding laser line tools: given that a laser line tool is acting as a stand-in for a range ruler used specifically to measure arcs and from yellow dot to yellow dot, is it legal to use a ranger ruler AND a laser line device at the same time?

Any assistance in answering these (and potentially any future) questions is appreciated.

People do this all the time. I feel it is fine to do. It gives a reasonable tactical estimate without too much shenanigans.

As for legal...your finger or hand are not included in the tool list, so seems fine

I jokingly told my opponent last weekend tournament that I was going to tattoo the range and maneuver tools onto my hand/forearms....

This is a touchy topic and I don't know that there's a cut and dry answer and probably comes down to being civil and fair with your opponent.

***The following are personal feelings and not to be taken as rules interpretations ***

1) I don't like it when my opponent leaves a finger on the table to mark a location for the reasons you listed above. However, I don't dislike it enough to make a big deal about it, because as Mike said, a strict reading indicates that I might not have a leg to stand on. I personally try to fix a location in my mind in relation to a particular star or where it is relative to components already on the board. I think the only time I grumbled about an opponent using a finger is when they started trying to map out how their ship could move in the next 3+ turns to see if they could make the turn to catch up to their squadrons again.

2) I've done this a few times and don't mind it too much. If the squadron is using its full movement to try to get out of engagement range, I'm likely to ask you to measure the range as accurately as possible so that you don't accidentally get an extra 1/4 inch. However if you're only using about 1 distance of your 3 available, I'll let you backtrack and finagle that to your heart's content. Just do the same fore me. I usually verbally walk through my measuring process so that my opponent knows why in the world I keep measuring things. 7/10 times I can just drop my ruler between the active squadron and its target and slide it just barely to engagement range and its ok.

3) I have never had the urge to use both of those because usually by the time we pull those out we've already ascertained range/distance and are just checking LOS/arcs. I'd probably lean towards disallowing it, but again, its never ever come up.

I agree with Rans on pretty much everything here.

This is one of those things that's easy to get rules-lawyery on, but there's really not a lot of support in RAW for giving somebody a hard time for using a finger, even though it's clearly against the explicit "speeding up the game" intent of the rule. As long as my opponent isn't doing anything too egregious or wasting a ton of time though, I'll just deal with it.

The squadron-shuffling I think is completely reasonable. First of all, you have the capability within the rules to get that squadron wherever within its range you want it. There is no strict and precise movement template that you're required to use, so you should be allowed to shift it to get it right where it needs to be. You're representing tiny ships on a huge scale, it's not that hard for a pilot to get his fighter right where he should be.

That said, I'm definitely a stickler for precision in the squadron game though: you put that ruler down every time, you measure and move carefully, and you sure as **** don't guesstimate range by hovering the ruler over top of the squadrons unless your move distance is well under your max range. I've spent an embarrassingly large amount of time on the kitchen table familiarizing myself with relative ranges of squadrons in relation to deployment zones, ship sizes, engagement ranges, formations, etc, and as a result I play my squadron game with pretty high precision. That means there's a very good chance that my plan hinges on you not being able to move your squadrons further than their maximum speed, making it a pretty significant advantage if you mis-judge, regardless of what your intentions were. Sorry, soapbox rant over...

Finally, I've never, ever seen anyone try to use the laser and a ruler at the same time. It strikes me as cheesy and trying to get around the one tool rule, but not a huge deal, so I'd probably give my opponent a ribbing about it and just move on.

So I apologize if my search-fu is weak, but the only threads I found regarding the one-tool rule were from prior to the current tournament rules (when its wording was different). As a reminder, the one-tool rule is currently written as:

One-Tool Rule: A player can only use one tool at a time when measuring range, distance, or movement. A tool is defined as the range ruler, the maneuver tool, or another component such as a token. This rule is intended to prevent slow play, as defined on page 5.

This poses some questions from me and our local players:

1. Can you measure with one tool, put down your finger at a specific point along that tool, remove the tool, and then measure from your finger using a new tool? This feels wrong to me, as your finger is effectively acting as a stand-in token or a lingering element of the last measurement tool, resulting in 2+ components being on the table even if one of those components is made of bones and meat and not cardboard.
2. Regarding squadrons in particular: it seems fairly common for players to announce their intention with squadrons and then move them up and then shuffle them around a little bit to get the desired effect (example: "I want to move this X-Wing to engage those two TIE Bombers but remain outside of engaging Soontir Fel"). I've done squadron movements like this myself. However, the only way to do this by the rules of Armada is to measure range from all relevant squadrons to check for engagement ranges, keep those marked somehow (using fingers and/or tokens) and then moving the squadron finally, which would require using the range ruler on a table with 1+ tokens/fingers/whatever already present on it. Does this break the one-tool rule?
3. Regarding laser line tools: given that a laser line tool is acting as a stand-in for a range ruler used specifically to measure arcs and from yellow dot to yellow dot, is it legal to use a ranger ruler AND a laser line device at the same time?

Any assistance in answering these (and potentially any future) questions is appreciated.

There is a lot of Spirit vs Letter in these questions. The point that really needs to be covered is the FFG list definitive with its definitions, or illustrative . Ergo, with that unfortunately statement, there isn't going to be any hard and fast rule in regards to it - we're going to be centering about opinion , of which, I can only give my own:

1. If you can mark it with a finger, you can mark it with a token... I feel the intent of the rule is to get you to measure and remember... Sorry. This violates spirit but not letter.

2. I personally measure everything, and remember the point - I don't mark with a finger or anything... Intention stating is okay with me. I feel I am purposefully lax with the Squadrons, since they're always picked up, bumped, never replaced in the same position, whereas Ships are relatively much more precise with their movement... Sometimes, precise isn't precise - its a battle, eyeball it and deal with the consequences Indeed, one or two of the rules suggestions and replies we've had from FFG is to be intentionally forgiving with squadron movements and measurements, because they are kicked around so much .

3. I think that a Laser Line measurement would have to be regarded as a Tool, but simply FFG limited their "Tool List" to what is in the Box and FFG Provided. If FFG provided a laser line tool, that would be listed as a tool. Utilising the Laser Line and a Range Ruler violates the Spirit of the Rule for me, as well...

Unfortunately, the only way to move this out of the Spirit vs. Letter of the Rule territory would be to have FFG either state that their list is definitive, or provide a definitive list of every possible tool (both options are equally improbable.)

I should clarify that when it comes right down to it, I'm skeptical of #1 (finger + ruler) as it seems contrary to the intent of the one-tool rule (as you're replacing a component/tool with a finger, hypothetically just chaining rulers and finger placements together as much as you please). I support playing it casually with #2, as we generally want to ensure the squadron doesn't move anything beyond its max distance but otherwise are fine with allowing squadron final placement/shuffling by "intent" within that restriction but by the letter of the rules it would seem that's not allowed. I'm interested in #3 just as an item of curiosity, as it seems to be a slightly different take on what is effectively the question posed by #1 (which Dras spelled out very well above with the distinction between illustrative vs. definitive).

Thank you for the input of everyone thus far. Unfortunately it seems to come down to opinion (which is basically the conclusion we reached locally), which troubles me only insomuch as there's always the chance of running into someone who has a very different opinion than you do on these matters and resolving the matter amicably can sometimes prove difficult without guidance from FFG.

I dropped a line to FFG customer service to see if they wouldn't mind clarifying for me/us. I'll let you know if they get back to me and what they have to say.

As far as squadron placing, my approach is usually this - as soon as you take your hand off of it, it's down. And I don't mean the very nanosecond. If you start to pull your hand away then realize you mucked it up, that I'm fine with. But if you place it, let it go and grab your dice or the next squadron, it's down.

The squadron finagling is a murky area with me. I'm sort of sour on the idea of picking up a squadron, placing it, then measuring engagement to all of the fighters around it and nudging if necessary. That's mainly because I used to know a guy who would move a footslogging Blood Angels army (I know, another bad 40k experience) and use a Warmachine Reach template to make sure each model was exactly two inches from every other model in the unit to reduce blast template hits. His movement phase took so long. I feel that putting down a squadron and then measuring distance to/from every squadron you want to engage/not engage can be very tedious, especially if one or both of you is fielding a swarm of fighters. And while you can obviously call a TO over for slow play, where exactly do you draw the line? Can I move my squadron, place it, then measure engagement range to two squadrons? Three? Seven?

Personally, I measure my movement, then measure engagement from the squadrons I want to check, then move my squadron. If I eyeballed it wrong, ah well, that's on me. But I'm not going to re-measure engagement range again, because that would slow the game down and is a bit cheeseball in my book.

You can also go with the "stated intent" approach, which has the same effect but speeds the game up. Clearly state that you want to move this squadron to engage those bombers but not Soontir Fel, and eyeball it as best as you can. Now, without moving, Soontir isn't engaged. The only time this can become a problem is when you do it with a bunch of different squadrons. Then you have to remember which enemies squadrons A/B/C/D/E were/weren't engaging.

It's probably something best discussed with your opponent ahead of time. As long as you can both agree on a system that won't bog the game down, you should be good. Just prepared to be a bit flexible, because this is probably the grayest area of the rules.

As far as squadron placing, my approach is usually this - as soon as you take your hand off of it, it's down. And I don't mean the very nanosecond. If you start to pull your hand away then realize you mucked it up, that I'm fine with. But if you place it, let it go and grab your dice or the next squadron, it's down.

The squadron finagling is a murky area with me. I'm sort of sour on the idea of picking up a squadron, placing it, then measuring engagement to all of the fighters around it and nudging if necessary. That's mainly because I used to know a guy who would move a footslogging Blood Angels army (I know, another bad 40k experience) and use a Warmachine Reach template to make sure each model was exactly two inches from every other model in the unit to reduce blast template hits. His movement phase took so long. I feel that putting down a squadron and then measuring distance to/from every squadron you want to engage/not engage can be very tedious, especially if one or both of you is fielding a swarm of fighters. And while you can obviously call a TO over for slow play, where exactly do you draw the line? Can I move my squadron, place it, then measure engagement range to two squadrons? Three? Seven?

Personally, I measure my movement, then measure engagement from the squadrons I want to check, then move my squadron. If I eyeballed it wrong, ah well, that's on me. But I'm not going to re-measure engagement range again, because that would slow the game down and is a bit cheeseball in my book.

You can also go with the "stated intent" approach, which has the same effect but speeds the game up. Clearly state that you want to move this squadron to engage those bombers but not Soontir Fel, and eyeball it as best as you can. Now, without moving, Soontir isn't engaged. The only time this can become a problem is when you do it with a bunch of different squadrons. Then you have to remember which enemies squadrons A/B/C/D/E were/weren't engaging.

It's probably something best discussed with your opponent ahead of time. As long as you can both agree on a system that won't bog the game down, you should be good. Just prepared to be a bit flexible, because this is probably the grayest area of the rules.

When it comes to squadrons, I'm a huge fan of stated intent. Using Soontir from your example, if both sides can stipulate that the moving squadron can clearly get where he wants to go and the point exists within that movement range where he engages bombers but not soontir, you can just do a quick measurement off soontir and place fighter. Speeds things up, and I don't want to see a game impacted by some kind of stupid avoidable error that could have been avoided with more careful measurement that wasn't made.

Personally, in our casual games I find letting people use fingers and junk goes much faster than making them eyeball it, because they spend less time agonizing over whether its the right decision, or committing a point in space to their memory. Hell, I let new players use multiple tools with the caveat that they understand that its against the official rules, and I'm allowing it while they get a better feel for the game.

With a casual game, I'm totally laid back about it. I could care less about winning. On a random Wednesday night (our club night) I'm just happy that my wife lets me leave her with the kids and push some plastic spacemans around a table while chucking dice.

In a tournament, it depends. If my opponent measures and it's obvious he can engage his two target squadrons without engaging X squadron (Soontir, for example), and if he states that, then I don't care if he slightly misplaces the model. We know what he was going for and we measured to make sure it was feasible. But if my opponent is playing a little too fast and loose, like saying he can engage the bombers without engaging Soontir but it doesn't seem quite possible, then I'm going to have you measure it, because that can make a large impact on the game.

I was just pointing out that declared intent can be cumbersome when there are a LOT of fighters, and you're trying to remember which squadrons are supposed to be engaging/not engaging which other squadrons.

Well not only do the rules say to only use one tool, but they also say that you can't measure distances beyond one measuring tool's range. So if you place a finger and then extend the ruler from that, that's what you're doing.

However, you can turn the range ruler around and measure FROM anything else. So while you can't measure out speed 4 from your tie fighter, place a finger, and check to see if I'm distance 1 from that point (engagement range), you can measure, eyeball where range 4 ends, then measure FROM your target to distance 1 to see if that spot is within it.

Well, in this perticular case FFG has actualy put the intent right in there with the actual rule.

"This rule is intended to prevent slow play, as defined on page 5."

It is just unfortionate that the actual rule (for me personaly any way) slowes down play more then if I was alowed to measure freely with what ever tool combinations I see fitt instead of trying to keep things in my head.

1. Can you measure with one tool, put down your finger at a specific point along that tool, remove the tool, and then measure from your finger using a new tool? This feels wrong to me, as your finger is effectively acting as a stand-in token or a lingering element of the last measurement tool, resulting in 2+ components being on the table even if one of those components is made of bones and meat and not cardboard.

I think there's a response letter from FFG somewhere in the forum stating that you are in fact allowed to use a finger. I can't back that up though, so feel free to disregard that entirely.

I personally have a hard time seeing that your are not allowed to use your finger. The FFG X-wing mat "Star field" are approved for tournament-use, and you can use that in the exact same way (since you basically have a grid of stars which covers the entire play area). If you put down the maneuver tool, look at which stars it ends at, remove the maneuver tool, and place the range tool there, it results in the same thing. The only difference is that it might slow things down, since you might feel like you need to redo it, in case you forget which star you looked at. To me, personally, it feels like the reason for these rules("prevent slow play") actually results in the opposite, since you need to keep more things in your head at once, and re-do certain measurements.

However, I do understand your point of view, and I agree that a email from FFG would be great. Make sure you post your answer when you get it!

Well, in this perticular case FFG has actualy put the intent right in there with the actual rule.

"This rule is intended to prevent slow play, as defined on page 5."

It is just unfortionate that the actual rule (for me personaly any way) slowes down play more then if I was alowed to measure freely with what ever tool combinations I see fitt instead of trying to keep things in my head.

I agree. To me, the rule actually causes the game to slow down, rather than speed up. Now, I need think about if my "quess work" is worth it, while keeping several measurements in my head, and doing a lot of independent measurements. If I could just quickly definitely measure it directly, I would speed it up.

(I understand what the logic behind the reason it, I it just doesn't apply to me our the people I play with).

I found the email I was talking about. I am just copy-pasting the relevant question, but you can find the entire email here, posted by Gibbobobo:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/180166-triangulation/page-3#entry1679526

Haha, I just did a tourney where I had the opposite problem. My opponent was so intent on engagement ranges and possible outcomes that when it came time to move his squadrons it was an agonizing experience, to the point where I kept offering that he should just state the intent and we would measure afterwards. To be fair it was fairly important as if he got it right I would not get a final bomber shot on a corvette that had a 25% chance of killing it (needed a hit/crit on tie bomber). He got it wrong but my rolling on tie bombers is notoriously garbage and i only got a hit

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the intent is clearly stated: to prevent slow play, if using a finger is quicker than measuring 3 times over the distance from 4 different squadron stands to make sure you get it in the right place, for the love of god use the **** finger.

Not sure I like the 'finger' rule. Seems like it could end up with a lot of time spent measuring for every fighter move rather than having to eye ball it. I always just figured that having to eyeball engagement distances was part of the skill of moving them. Just like guessing where your fighters will end up in xwing.

Not sure I like the 'finger' rule. Seems like it could end up with a lot of time spent measuring for every fighter move rather than having to eye ball it. I always just figured that having to eyeball engagement distances was part of the skill of moving them. Just like guessing where your fighters will end up in xwing.

But you actively move your squadrons up to their distance at the time they move - so it's pretty different from X Wing.

The problem is that with the "eyeball" method, people will be measuring, and remeasuring to make sure. They'll still measure to and from every squadron that they need to, but they'll spend my more time analyzing the data.

Not sure I like the 'finger' rule. Seems like it could end up with a lot of time spent measuring for every fighter move rather than having to eye ball it. I always just figured that having to eyeball engagement distances was part of the skill of moving them. Just like guessing where your fighters will end up in xwing.

But you actively move your squadrons up to their distance at the time they move - so it's pretty different from X Wing.

The problem is that with the "eyeball" method, people will be measuring, and remeasuring to make sure. They'll still measure to and from every squadron that they need to, but they'll spend my more time analyzing the data.

right, but ships have imperfect movement built in as well. You can't click the movement tool in and then decide where to go. I figured that was to prevent exactly the sort of stuff you're talking about. People measuring every possible case because they can have perfect knowledge. More info is always worse than less for those with analysis paralysis in my experience.

Yep, but squadrons move fundamentally different than ships, so applying that same standard is a little goofy.

Engagement, 360° firing arcs, 360° movement.

The text defines what a tool is. A finger is not in the definition so it should be fine. Hell you can mark the position with a star on the starfield playing mat thats used for official ffg events.

I can tell you what it was like when I played warmachine a few years ago, a game where the tenth of an inch regularly decides games:

State your intent, then we look if its possible (range, positioning).

Don't abuse that or the possiblity of putting a finger down and everyone is happy. If you tell me what squadrons you want to engage, then we take a look if it is possible, then put it there. Also, if the positioning would have to be so exact that it is humanly almost impossible to place it there...don't try it. I play to have a good time first, and I want to play you at your best, not win because of a milimeter or two, but some people try to make ridulously exact placements.

I can tell you what it was like when I played warmachine a few years ago, a game where the tenth of an inch regularly decides games:

State your intent, then we look if its possible (range, positioning).

Don't abuse that or the possiblity of putting a finger down and everyone is happy. If you tell me what squadrons you want to engage, then we take a look if it is possible, then put it there. Also, if the positioning would have to be so exact that it is humanly almost impossible to place it there...don't try it. I play to have a good time first, and I want to play you at your best, not win because of a milimeter or two, but some people try to make ridulously exact placements.

An Armada buddy and I are both ex-Warmachine players (played for many years, abandoned ship a bit over a year ago) and I understand where you're coming from perfectly. This is why we're also big fans of the "declare intent, move squadron in keeping with intent as much as possible" method for doing it, but there's no official rules support for or against that method. We don't want to train up our new players with bad habits they might get called on while playing elsewhere. That's all.

I'd also like to add for anyone who is interested that in light of the tournament/FAQ rules being updated the new tournament rules REMOVE THE ONE TOOL RULE COMPLETELY . So the main question posed by this thread no longer seems relevant. It would seem that you can use all the tools, tokens, fingers, etc. that you want provided you're not being a jerk about it.

I'd also like to add for anyone who is interested that in light of the tournament/FAQ rules being updated the new tournament rules REMOVE THE ONE TOOL RULE COMPLETELY . So the main question posed by this thread no longer seems relevant. It would seem that you can use all the tools, tokens, fingers, etc. that you want provided you're not being a jerk about it.

Of course, this may only be because there's no applicable ruling (or pre measuring) in the X-Wing Rules, and these tournament regulations seem to have numerous parts that are simply Copy-Pasted from that Document...

So yes, you are correct, but I feel we need to wait and see what happens in the next week or so before we consider it free-reign...

I mean, these rules don't apply until April, Anyway

The tiebreakers also took a big change.

I'd also like to add for anyone who is interested that in light of the tournament/FAQ rules being updated the new tournament rules REMOVE THE ONE TOOL RULE COMPLETELY . So the main question posed by this thread no longer seems relevant. It would seem that you can use all the tools, tokens, fingers, etc. that you want provided you're not being a jerk about it.

Take at look in the topic about the new Tournament regulation. It seems very likely that FFG screwed up, and that have just copy-pasted a lot of rules from the X-Wing tournament rules, since a lot of the rules are wrong, and some of them doesn't even make sense (unless to read them in a X-Wing state of mind).

I'd also like to add for anyone who is interested that in light of the tournament/FAQ rules being updated the new tournament rules REMOVE THE ONE TOOL RULE COMPLETELY . So the main question posed by this thread no longer seems relevant. It would seem that you can use all the tools, tokens, fingers, etc. that you want provided you're not being a jerk about it.

Take at look in the topic about the new Tournament regulation. It seems very likely that FFG screwed up, and that have just copy-pasted a lot of rules from the X-Wing tournament rules, since a lot of the rules are wrong, and some of them doesn't even make sense (unless to read them in a X-Wing state of mind).

And when/if FFG does amend the PDF, I'll be happy to take a close look at it. For the time being, however, the April-official tournament rules do not include the one-tool rule. I have mixed feelings about that, but for now that's the official come April.