I wonder how different the game would be if you had to declare your action and if it turned out you couldn't do it, oh well, nice try, no action for you.

Not *that* much different other than being much more careful on questionable boosts/brolls/locks. Doesn't give much impact on higher skilled players while punishing lower skill players unnecessarily. It trims out a modicum of 'cheese' like measuring overly long locks but doesn't gain much benefit for how much it hurts weaker players imo.

Considering that I was asking this question for free locks from a K4, it wouldn't matter too much to me if I didn't end up getting the lock because of range and had to skip it. But I do think that trying an action and failing it, and then not being able to do another action would be too harsh on newer players, like nigiltastic says.

I will keep cheesing my free locks, because, alas, they are free.

I don't think you're allowed to aquire a target lock without measuring. Measuring range is part of the sequence defined in the rules, and X-wing doesn't really have any provisions for skipping steps.

and X-wing doesn't really have any provisions for skipping steps.

Strictly RAW no it doesn't. But most people, as in every one I've ever played allows some steps to be skipped when the only thing they'd accomplish it to slow the game down.

Such as checking for TL when the ship is clearly at range 1, or checking for arc when the ship is clearly in arc.

Clearly there is not a lot of Vader players here...

While legal, I find it borderline cheating when people check for TL's that are clearly out of range simply to get an idea of distance, usually to a ship in between them.

Super Dash is the worst offender because of the donut hole. Its even easier to abuse on vassal. I rage quit on a player who kept doing that with his Super Dash.

You joking right? That is perfectly legal. Maybe pick some other rule to rage quit too...? That is common and bound in rules method to get range without shooting. So basically you did throw a table cause someone played by the rules. Good job.

Clearly there is not a lot of Vader players here...

Its not only Vader. All aces that can usually want to check those ranges for boost and such.

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

While I admit its in the rules I dont like it as I feel it is an unintended manipulation of the rules that potentially provides more accurate information than what you should have .

I must admit however that most here are in favor of allowing this, but most everyone was against the ID rule which was in the rules as well.

Fascinating

@OP: you can totally do it, but I'd recommend against it (at least in casual play). Little cheats like that will actually hurt you in the long run, since they impede your ability to estimate distances for yourself.

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

While I admit its in the rules I dont like it as I feel it is an unintended manipulation of the rules that potentially provides more accurate information than what you should have .

I must admit however that most here are in favor of allowing this, but most everyone was against the ID rule which was in the rules as well.

Fascinating

The ID really isn't a great parallel to draw here. We got upset over IDs because they allow players to manipulate tournament standings based on self interest. Target Locks allow you to measure range. That's it. And it's information that's available to both players -- either one can act based on it. Honestly, it's manipulation of the game in the same way that choosing a damage deck is; yeah, maybe it doesn't fit perfectly within the rules as intended; but it doesn't screw with the balance or playability of the game, and, in fact, adds a little bit of nuance to it.

I don't think you're allowed to aquire a target lock without measuring. Measuring range is part of the sequence defined in the rules, and X-wing doesn't really have any provisions for skipping steps.

There are a LOT of steps that people seem to be completely fine skipping over. The prime example I'd cite here is just blowing over triggers and other timing events without getting a definite "I'm not going to take X at this time although I could," statement. If this always happened there wouldn't be any missed opportunities because every opportunity would need to be called out before play could continue.

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

...

It would be even funnier to see YOUR reaction when they "politely decline" because the rules allow them to measure using the range ruler and the ruler reaches all the way out to the end of R3. If you continue to "insist" then YOU should be DQed for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I wonder how different the game would be if you had to declare your action and if it turned out you couldn't do it, oh well, nice try, no action for you.

Game would be better, but the designers decided to instead cater to Super Dash players instead of good players.

If someone tried to boost their fat turret and it turned out they couldn't and lost their action, that would hurt that person's feelings.

The ID really isn't a great parallel to draw here. We got upset over IDs because they allow players to manipulate tournament standings based on self interest. Target Locks allow you to measure range. That's it. And it's information that's available to both players -- either one can act based on it. Honestly, it's manipulation of the game in the same way that choosing a damage deck is; yeah, maybe it doesn't fit perfectly within the rules as intended; but it doesn't screw with the balance or playability of the game, and, in fact, adds a little bit of nuance to it.

The thing is you not just getting a target lock, that's kinda the point of the whole thread, your getting a bunch of other information that you are not allowed to measure in any other aspect of the game, and it is incidental information as your not actually measuring for that info your meant to just be measuring for the range between 2 ships to see if you get a TL or not. What people are doing is performing a "TL" to specifically get that incidental information because of a loophole in the rules.

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

...

It would be even funnier to see YOUR reaction when they "politely decline" because the rules allow them to measure using the range ruler and the ruler reaches all the way out to the end of R3. If you continue to "insist" then YOU should be DQed for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Well that escalated quickly!!!

So let me get this straight, you accuse me of unsportsmanlike conduct and want me thrown out of an event to protect your ability to manipulate a loophole in the rules for what some might consider an unfair advantage?

Seems totally legit...

I do it with Vader if don't have a shot but opponent might, check for TL and I get if see if I have enough to barrel roll out of range.

....

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

...

It would be even funnier to see YOUR reaction when they "politely decline" because the rules allow them to measure using the range ruler and the ruler reaches all the way out to the end of R3. If you continue to "insist" then YOU should be DQed for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Well that escalated quickly!!!

So let me get this straight, you accuse me of unsportsmanlike conduct and want me thrown out of an event to protect your ability to manipulate a loophole in the rules for what some might consider an unfair advantage?

Seems totally legit...

What did you expect?

I am completely within my rights to use the FULL range ruler to measure my TLs. While you could "ask" that I use some R1 or R2 ruler to do so you instead INSIST that I do it. Maybe you are trying to be "polite" about it but what you are trying to do is FORCE my hand with your insistence despite having nothing in the rules to back you up. After I tell you to "no thanks" the first time if you ask again (the "continue to insist" part) then what you are doing is clearly unsportsmanlike as you are suggesting I do things that have no merit within the rules.

I'll admit that when I said "DQed" I was thinking more along the lines of having a forced concession from you instead of throwing you from the event but if that is the only way to deal with unsportsmanlike conduct then so be it.

Getting those target lock measurements in is what helps make the Inquisitor extremely viable.

With Push the limit, after a failed target lock you can try to boost or roll into range 3, or after a successful target lock at range 2, you may be able to roll backwards to nudge yourself out of range 2.

V1 and Autothrusters give you the means and the reason to do the target lock dance.

....

I would be fascinated to see what the response from my opponent would be if I politely insisted they use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler to measure when it is quite clear that the ships are within that range.

...

It would be even funnier to see YOUR reaction when they "politely decline" because the rules allow them to measure using the range ruler and the ruler reaches all the way out to the end of R3. If you continue to "insist" then YOU should be DQed for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Well that escalated quickly!!!

So let me get this straight, you accuse me of unsportsmanlike conduct and want me thrown out of an event to protect your ability to manipulate a loophole in the rules for what some might consider an unfair advantage?

Seems totally legit...

What did you expect?

I am completely within my rights to use the FULL range ruler to measure my TLs. While you could "ask" that I use some R1 or R2 ruler to do so you instead INSIST that I do it. Maybe you are trying to be "polite" about it but what you are trying to do is FORCE my hand with your insistence despite having nothing in the rules to back you up. After I tell you to "no thanks" the first time if you ask again (the "continue to insist" part) then what you are doing is clearly unsportsmanlike as you are suggesting I do things that have no merit within the rules.

I'll admit that when I said "DQed" I was thinking more along the lines of having a forced concession from you instead of throwing you from the event but if that is the only way to deal with unsportsmanlike conduct then so be it.

Very well, I cede that the usage of the word "insist" was not the correct vernacular to convey my intent.

However by refusing to use a suggested R1 or R2 ruler in a situation where it is abundantly clear that they would be sufficient, and insisting on using a R3 when it is redundantly long, this shows clear intent on your behalf that you already know you are in TL range and that your real purpose is to abuse a loophole in the rules to gain knowledge that you CANNOT in any other way in the game gain legally.

This is not a personal attack, I am merely pointing out that this is a loophole that needs to be addressed as it looks god-awful watching someone using this on the tabletop gaining valuable information that cannot otherwise be gained legitimately.

What about using the range 3 ruler for deployment?

While legal, I find it borderline cheating when people check for TL's that are clearly out of range simply to get an idea of distance, usually to a ship in between them.

Super Dash is the worst offender because of the donut hole. Its even easier to abuse on vassal. I rage quit on a player who kept doing that with his Super Dash.

You joking right? That is perfectly legal. Maybe pick some other rule to rage quit too...? That is common and bound in rules method to get range without shooting. So basically you did throw a table cause someone played by the rules. Good job.

The common mechanism for checking range in vassal is to CTRL+L, which lights up the entire 360 degree range bands around a ship. This is actually illegal. When acquiring a target lock, you are only allowed to measure range specifically from the closest point to closest point on the two ships.

You ARE allowed to measure all ranges when attacking, but this is different than spamming CTRL+L to check target lock ranges. You can abuse this to determine exactly where your ship will be after a particular boost / barrel roll / maneuver.

If someone insisted in a tournament that a target lock not be measured correctly, I'd call the TO. The exact distance between the two ships after a target lock is supposed to be open, shared information. Attempting to gain an advantage over your oppenent by not target locking correctly (that is, making a bona fide effort to measure the distance between the two ships with a range ruler) is a light form of cheating.

Obviously, most of the time the distance between two ships is obvious to both players and people skip the measurement by mutual consent, but if someone wants the target lock to be measured it needs to be measured.

I thought there was some note in the rules about not measuring when the range is patently further than range 3? Maybe I'm getting my systems mixed up again.

I think it's hard to mandate using a range 1 or 2 ruler. I for one don't own any fancy acrylics yet.

Information works both ways. If someone checks range for the target lock you can ask them to keep the range ruler down so you can also see the range.

Seriously THIS IS NOT WARHAMMER! Premeasuring is actually allowed here.

As people have said i's legal, but if you need to check if your ship is in TL range at ranges 1 or 2 then that would set the tone for the game, and that would be a negative one. I wouldn't allow you do overs etc if you did this as you are using the rules to benefit you, I would use them to benefit me. Doing this isn't in the spirit of the game in my opinion, just because people agree with you, doesn't make it right. Are you measuring to see if you are in range on an obvious lock? No, so you are loopholing the intention of the rules.

What I've seen people do (and during my noob phase, have copied) is declaring TL on an obviously out of range 3 ship, then using the range ruler to check range 2 on a nearer ship (in the middle) to see if Tactician works or if a boost is needed.

It is also perfectly reasonable for me to request my opponent measures range and shares the information when obtaining a target lock. It can be to my advantage when I've not yet moved.

On a related note I've never seen anyone complain when measuring range for an attack to check if it's range 2 or range 3 when it doesn't make any difference to that attack. e.g. HLC Dash. But this information can be vital when planning ahead.

So why is it any different when taking a target lock?

The short answer is that it isn't.

Very well, I cede that the usage of the word "insist" was not the correct vernacular to convey my intent.

However by refusing to use a suggested R1 or R2 ruler in a situation where it is abundantly clear that they would be sufficient, and insisting on using a R3 when it is redundantly long, this shows clear intent on your behalf that you already know you are in TL range and that your real purpose is to abuse a loophole in the rules to gain knowledge that you CANNOT in any other way in the game gain legally.

This is not a personal attack, I am merely pointing out that this is a loophole that needs to be addressed as it looks god-awful watching someone using this on the tabletop gaining valuable information that cannot otherwise be gained legitimately.

You can't really force someone to use non-official templates(like r1/r1-2 gauges) and in any case unless you say actions are binding even if impossible, you are never going to be able to close the 'loophole'. It's just part of the game. I rarely need that extra information anyway- I have a good handle on what the ranges are.

I didn't expect this to get so heated. Obviously people didn't know they wanted to talk about this so badly. I agree with the sentiment that declaring a lock on something blatantly out of range 3 to get information on a closer ship is straight up cheating. I've never done that. I always just measure between the ship I'm locking and my own ship, and usually that means the closest ship to my own.