I myself did it the "improper" way as well for a long time. I have since been corrected and now am a missionary for preaching the correct way.

Makes squadrons WAY more difficult to play well and makes intel WAY more difficult to use/ easy to avoid, etc..

Preach it brother!

I think this debate is a tricky one, because it's very situational. Tom, mike and WuFame, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you three are advocating for measuring and moving exact distances in any situation, correct?

The following statements are for tournament play. In casual situations, I play it pretty fast and loose.

When dealing with squadrons moving to or almost to their movement limit, I wholeheartedly agree about nudging and accurately measuring. I get apprehensive when my opponent measures toward the end of the ruler, then measures range to my squadrons/ships and starts nudging. As soon as that range ruler is changed to measuring engagement range, we have no point of reference for where the squadron started, so it's difficult to ensure that it doesn't move too far. So if we're talking almost to max range, I prefer my opponent to figure out where they want to end up before they place the squadron and move the ruler.

But if a squadron is trying to end well within their movement, I find nudging perfectly acceptable, because it speeds the game along. By FFG's own ruling, I don't have to guess. I can measure engagement to every ship/squadron I'll move near and use my finger or a token to mark the spot. I find it easier for my opponent to declare their intent, then we'll measure and mark the end of their movement, and see if their intent is possible. After all, I'm not going to let my opponent just declare that they're going to engage the two Advanceds next to my Jumpmaster without measuring to see if it's physically possible. But I'm also not going to make them guess, or spend two minutes measuring engagement over and over until they find a star on the gaming mat that is exactly where they want to be.

Once the squadrons are in a scrum, I'm even more casual about it. Measuring accurately is almost impossible, because the range ruler has be to held several inches over the bases. If it looks possible to engage squadrons A, B and C, just state that and let's move on. I'm not going to mark five squadrons and move them out of the way to see if squadron C is 2mm in or out of range. If I clustered my squadrons close enough that it looks like your squadron can lock them all down or Intel all of them, that's on me.

It's not coddling someone to point out they haven't actually moved into attack range if that's what they're TRYING to do. It's not shooting yourself in the foot to assist your opponent to place the models where he is trying to place them. And you're not a better player because you can visually judge the distance of the range 1 band down to the millimetre.

I would agree with this, and most of what Chuckle said. If you're arguing with your opponent over millimeters, that's not going to make for a fun game. Armada isn't about those "Gotcha!" moments where you blindside your opponent with something. All of your ships, upgrades and rules are visible. You can pre-measure everything. It's about strategy and tactical maneuvering, not secrets and surprises. If you think a player is out of range when they're moving, say so then, because it'll save you an argument later (especially if that squadron/ship gets nudged/bumped/picked up before it attacks). Now if you can't agree on whether something can get into range, I find it perfectly acceptable to ask the TO to double-check, or just roll a die for expediency.

TL;DR

- Measure accurately whenever possible (especially when squadrons are moving max distance)

- State your intent to your opponent, work together to determine if it's possible

- Remember the game is about fun, not measurement

No measuring for anything would fix this problem and pretty much every other problem with measuring, pre measuring, what tlcan be used, and what cant be used. I really wish they would just change the rule so that there's no pre measuring at all.

No measuring for anything would fix this problem and pretty much every other problem with measuring, pre measuring, what tlcan be used, and what cant be used. I really wish they would just change the rule so that there's no pre measuring at all.

I don't. That's not what this game is about. This is not a spatial relations game and I don't thing players should be given an advantage because they can "see" better than their opponent.

Didn't FFG state that it's ok to move a squad, measure, then adjust final position? Provided you communicate your intent?

That's both fast and flexible.

Didn't FFG state that it's ok to move a squad, measure, then adjust final position? Provided you communicate your intent?

That's both fast and flexible.

Yes, it was posted previously in this thread. I didn't know about it but I like that there's an official ruling on it. Now I can rest easy knowing I'm not breaking the rules by nudging my squadrons around.

Im totally in the camp of "this is a game of plans, not twitch execution". These are space age ships with big computers and who knows how long a turn represents. They would all have ui and stuff showing them exact engagement ranges and whatnot. Measuring should be no problem.

If it were up to me, there would be a token in the game you place where you want to move your fighter. You can measure all the hell you want, move and nudge it all the hell you want. As long as it's in the squads move range at the end, move the squad there.

Such a token to me would speed the game up. It takes time for people to hum and haw about if the range is correct.. worried to pick up the piece and move it. If they could just do it with confidence, couple measures and it's done.

I'm more interested in what your thought intent is (to get into range1 of that, be out of range 1 of that), than I am woo'ed by people's anal insistence that you're 1 mm off. Also this game gets kind of bumpy and you have to move stuff a lot. If someone flicks their hp dial and then puts the ship back not exactly in the same place, a distance of 1 mm can easily change the equation a lot.

This sort of thing is why, if I care about the outcome of a particular measurement, I like to measure, have my opponent agree something is wherever it is, and then if it gets bumped later oh well we know where it was relative to things that matter.

I think this is key. It is actually better to measure and get intent than it is to not measure and not tell or measure and not tell. It avoids conflict and is faster.

Also, I want to issue a quick apology. I'm writing that in a very aggressive (FLY CASUAL!!) way that actually isn't very nice. Thanks to WuFame for responding in a really thoughtful manner. Sorry.

--

I've been teaching new players with this phrase: "What your intent?" when they ask me if they got into range of engaging and stuff. I think some people have been really liking it. Should we use that for those of us who want to play this way?

Yes, it is always better to communicate clearly than not. I consider polite and courteous to explain everything. If you're playing a newer player, they'll appreciate it and may come back for more games. And that's something we should all look for: encouraging more players.

One of the deployment tokens I got at the Stele Open doubles as a squadron marker, so I thought I might use it for squads that are moving toward the end of their movement rating, so if needed I could make sure i didn't overdrive my engines. I do agree that discussing intent (trying to be in range of one thing but out of range of another) should be used. It's used regularly in Infinity, and heads off arguments in addition to making the game flow faster since both players are involved.