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.

I am reminded of a quote by someone but I don't remember who. "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled your own facts." In this I don't meant Caboose2900 specifically. Just "you" in general.

If a target lock is attempted on something that is clearly outside of range 3 then I respect an opinion that this is against the spirit of the rules. I do not respect an opinion that it is cheating. It is allowed within the rules and is therefore not cheating.

I wouldn't expect someone to be accused of cheating when they are not just because someone else doesn't like to play that way.

I use target lock a lot because I'm running ships like Palob, once I know if I have lock and I'm in range 2 I know whether my forces should focus or not, I'm using attanni Mindlink

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.

I am reminded of a quote by someone but I don't remember who. "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled your own facts." In this I don't meant Caboose2900 specifically. Just "you" in general.

If a target lock is attempted on something that is clearly outside of range 3 then I respect an opinion that this is against the spirit of the rules. I do not respect an opinion that it is cheating. It is allowed within the rules and is therefore not cheating.

I wouldn't expect someone to be accused of cheating when they are not just because someone else doesn't like to play that way.

Fair enough. I meant more that the measuring of the target locking gaining you details of a ship in between is sorta cheating. If your only measuring towards a lone ship out of range I have no issue with it. I just don't think gaining info on a third-party when locking is fair play.

But, that could very well be an opinion.

Not only your example is legal, but you can even re-acquire a target lock on a ship that you are already locked just to measure range.

I thought there was some note in the rules about not measuring when the range is patently further than range 3?

No there's no such rule in X-Wing. You could measure for a TL for a ship that's a few MM from yours if you wanted.

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

Actually you can measure range at any time in 7th edition of 40k. Was one of the biggest surprises I had about the new rules. Last time I played that was 5th. Now I'm starting to do some kill team at the LGS.

I meant more that the measuring of the target locking gaining you details of a ship in between is sorta cheating.

If I try and bend or otherwise move the ruler around to get an exact range on a 3rd ship, then perhaps. But It's pretty much impossible to call incidental information cheating. If there's a ship directly between the active ship and it's target, it's going to be impossible to not measure range to that 3rd ship. At that point saying it's sort of cheating or even poor sportsmanship is simply daft.

Also for the insisting that someone use a range 1 or 2 template. No only do the rules not support that. Even if the person in question had one, he wouldn't have to use it. There is nothing illegal or even unsportsmanlike about gaining additional information when you TL something.

In fact here's what Alex Davy said about it in a email he sent me. So this should answer any question about RAI.

Simply choosing a target and measuring range to it is fine, no matter what other information might be inadvertently gleaned.

It's dickish. But I find it unacceptable to "check for target lock" on a ship that's like range 5, to see if you need to barrel roll away from a ship at range 2.

But I find it unacceptable to "check for target lock" on a ship that's like range 5

You may not find it acceptable, but it is allowed by the rules. So the only thing you could do at that point is try to either convince the TO to call it unsporting, and do what's appropriate. Or walk away from the table if the other guy insists on doing it.

Because in that case you do not have the rules on your side.

But I find it unacceptable to "check for target lock" on a ship that's like range 5

You may not find it acceptable, but it is allowed by the rules. So the only thing you could do at that point is try to either convince the TO to call it unsporting, and do what's appropriate. Or walk away from the table if the other guy insists on doing it.

Because in that case you do not have the rules on your side.

Its abusing the rules is it not?

Its abusing the rules is it not?

That's debatable. You may feel so, someone else may not. Both opinions are fairly valid depending on your point of view. The rules don't have any sort of requirement that you have have a reason to believe the target is in range. So purely RAW then no you're not abusing it.

It is in fact nearly impossible to put such a requirement in, because now you're getting into judgement calls on what's reasonable.

Any given TO may agree with you, and give the person a warning, or they may not. It's again a judgement call. If you're not in a tournament, then it's between you and the other guy. But again the rule doesn't state you can only check ranges when it's reasonable to believe the target is in range. So RAW you can in fact check the range to every ship on the table if you so chose.

At times I'm just shocked by how much people seem to HATE the idea of any kind of measuring in this game. I fully understand not wanting someone to waste huge amounts of time by measuring every possible thing before actually doing something (or stalling for simplicity) but everything is out in the open and so are the measurements. I'd much rather play in a game where someone was allows a quick sweep around the ship with the range ruler and could briefly set a template on the board than I would with some of the many people here who it seems would love to gouge your eyes out and break your hands if you do ANYTHING that could possibly give you distance/directional information that you are told you must have and act on.

I thought there was some note in the rules about not measuring when the range is patently further than range 3?

No there's no such rule in X-Wing. You could measure for a TL for a ship that's a few MM from yours if you wanted.

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

Actually you can measure range at any time in 7th edition of 40k. Was one of the biggest surprises I had about the new rules. Last time I played that was 5th. Now I'm starting to do some kill team at the LGS.

I meant more that the measuring of the target locking gaining you details of a ship in between is sorta cheating.

If I try and bend or otherwise move the ruler around to get an exact range on a 3rd ship, then perhaps. But It's pretty much impossible to call incidental information cheating. If there's a ship directly between the active ship and it's target, it's going to be impossible to not measure range to that 3rd ship. At that point saying it's sort of cheating or even poor sportsmanship is simply daft.Also for the insisting that someone use a range 1 or 2 template. No only do the rules not support that. Even if the person in question had one, he wouldn't have to use it. There is nothing illegal or even unsportsmanlike about gaining additional information when you TL something.In fact here's what Alex Davy said about it in a email he sent me. So this should answer any question about RAI.

Simply choosing a target and measuring range to it is fine, no matter what other information might be inadvertently gleaned.

If you received an email about it and that is what they have to say about the issue, them I have no problems with it. Just seems like cheese to me.

On a slightly different note, I had an experience recently where my opponent got snappy at me when I asked him to check the range of an attack. I had asked him once before in that game on a different attack, because the attack was really close to range one. I think he took me asking as me being a stickler, but I genuinely wasn't sure if the attack was range one or not. I don't know, just thought I'd share.

Just seems like cheese to me.

Well again, and I'm not saying you can't have your own opinion on it... But there will be times where it is physically impossible to not gain additional information when checking range or arc. Expecting people to not use that information, when both sides have access to it is simply unfeasible. But there is a point in which measuring can be an issue...

Let's say I'm checking arc and instead of measuring directly to the target ship I measure a line to one side of it so I can measure the range to a 3rd ship. Then there's an issue.

On a slightly different note, I had an experience recently where my opponent got snappy at me when I asked him to check the range of an attack.

Sounds like someone you may want to avoid if that's part of a pattern of behavior. The way I've always done it, is if either side isn't sure on the range you measure it. Sometimes that means a ship you're sure is at range 1 really isn't. But no one should simply accept the other guys word for it.

This was pure laziness and a lack of forward thinking by FFG. This situation could have and should have been remedied by FFG. This could have easily been accomplished by having one side of the range ruler blank. When you attempt a TL you simply use the blank side. If you're within range 3 you acquire. You do t have other ranges marked so you can't accidentally on purpose measure distance to other ships or find the specific range to the locked target. This way the TL mechanic still works without the legal cheese which breaks the spirit of the law if not the letter.

This was pure laziness and a lack of forward thinking by FFG.

Wow that's a lot of assumptions on your part... Namely that FFG doesn't want it to work exactly like it does.

It also clearly does not break the spirit of the law, since the law giver himself said that he was fine with it.

Edit: Besides who can't keep track of a 3rd of the ruler without markings?

I'm always pretty amazed by people who seem to arbitrarily decide what the rules ought to be rather than what the rules are.

I'm always pretty amazed by people who seem to arbitrarily decide what the rules ought to be rather than what the rules are.

Unfortunately rules are often open to interpretation. Of course sometimes there is an attempt made to lessen those interpretations but that can sometimes make things even harder for lay people to understand. Then you look at trying to keep a rule simple and you get all kinds of arguments that want to read far more into a rule than is actually there and say it is all part of the intent of the rule even if there is no good way to judge intent.

I'm more than okay with it since it adds another layer of strategy to the game.

Some of our local players swear by Targeting Computer on Soontir because of the tricks you can pull with TL "attempts."

This was pure laziness and a lack of forward thinking by FFG.

Well, no, because in the original game -- before it was changed for tournament play a couple of years ago -- measurement was all very open. You could, for instance, measure to every ship you wanted, then choose one to TL ... or not, and do something else.

The TL measurement cheese is a direct consequence of the "if you attempt a TL, you must take it if you can" change in the tournament rules ... that has since percolated into the actual game rules.

This was pure laziness and a lack of forward thinking by FFG.

Wow that's a lot of assumptions on your part... Namely that FFG doesn't want it to work exactly like it does.It also clearly does not break the spirit of the law, since the law giver himself said that he was fine with it.Edit: Besides who can't keep track of a 3rd of the ruler without markings?

"Because I said so" is the worst reason to believe something. What is he going to say, "yeah it's shite but we couldn't think of a way around it"?

You don't need another ruler. One side of the cardboard ruler which comes with the core set has printed ranges, the other side doesn't. Very simple.

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.

You just had to post your "fat-turret-hate" BS in a topic with no relation right...?

Back to the topic:

Simple solution to everybody: Just accept it is legal and accepted and start doing it yourself. Cause i feel like you doesn't do it and stand as paladins of not measuring just for sake...of beeing paladins and not measure. There is no logic argument that prevents anyone from doing it.

Is it gamebreaking? - no.

Usefull? - sure.

Allowed by rules? - yes.

Kills the game? - not a all.

So why just not take it as given and adjust?

The intent on the statement in FFGs FAQ has been compromised and yet it is legal.

First off you have no clue what the intent was, you didn't write it. I however do in fact have an email from the person who wrote it, saying what the intent was.

Your whole argument is based on the amazingly flawed assumption you actually know what the "spirit of the rules" should be. When all you're really doing is trying to twist them into how you'd prefer them to be.

Plus, anyone who's played this game for more than about 6 months is pretty good at eyeballing the range in the first place. The most you'll gain is an exact measurement, and then only if that 3rd ship is directly under the ruler... In which case it wouldn't be that hard to know which 3rd of it that ship is under anyway.

It's not a loophole. Is a defined step in the process.

No one would ever say " don't bother with that BR template. You can do it". "That 3 turn will fit right between those ships, you can just put it there".

This information is one of the few things that makes TL useful instead of focus.

Honestly, I used to be part of the "attempting a clearly out of range target lock just to gain other info is BS" and got heated about the topic myself. I still think it's a little messed up, and I still really dislike the idea of sweeping the range ruler around the ship. However, it really, REALLY doesn't impact the game all that much (at least not in my experience), and here's why:

Players who are gifted with exceptional spatial awareness can judge their maneuvers uncannily well. I'm by no means an expert, but I can look at the board state, look over at my templates (laying way over off the mat) and mentally visualize with a pretty decent degree of certainty exactly where my ship will end up with a given maneuver. Doing this is, by the way, a heck of a lot easier with small ships.

Players with exceptional memories can remember exact distances between rocks, even distances between certain stars on the plain playmat. This can be used as a tool to gauge ranges and maneuvers as well.

Players with those memories and FAR higher levels of math skill than me can remember the radius of the death star(s) on the other playmats, the length and final position of maneuver templates, and extrapolate from there.

Other players don't have those abilities (and they aren't always things that can be learned - if you have naff spatial awareness you will never 'learn' it), and getting upset over using target locks to get information that other players have naturally by looking at the mat is kind of a jerky thing to do. Granted, the range ruler will usually give you more exact information than the most educated guess, but really it isn't that big of a deal.

And as a final note, players getting information about ship location and distance from attempting target locks has never once cost me a game. I think that the situations where this results in a game winning action are few and far between, and if you are wrong and the enemy ship is in range, you just lost an action. Heck, if someone slaps targeting computer on Soontir to play these, GREAT!!!! That means he isn't rocking a stealth device (since he will clearly always have autothrusters ). Play all the 'games' you want, so long as we keep playing the one we sat down to play!!!!

I tend to get annoyed at people that do this.. I find it .. to use your word.. "Cheeky".

Most times when I see someone reaching to check I tell them quite obviously that they are well with in TL range.. to continue, to me, is in poor taste.. know your ranges.. know your moves.. will you hit that rock.. maybe.. dial it up and see.. or play a safer move.. check for a TL inside of range two... sorry but you shouldn't be playing.. just my view, no one has to like it.. but I find it tantamount to cheating.. it's obvious.. and if you need to look at the range to see if you need a boost.. well .. you know how I feel..

OK. blast away.. just remember, we all have our opinions.. not all will be the same.

EDIT

Yes I measure from time to time, it is typically at the extreme of range 3 where it is not always easy to determine.. but I'm usually sure it is just in.. happened on 2 games today, as I'm using Bomber missile boats and the TLs are very important.. anything closer than range 3 and I don't even reach for the range stick.

Nah Brew, check them obvious TL's. It's perfectly legal and is a good way to help with range if you're not so great at visual estimation. I repeat, there is nothing wrong with playing the game by the rules. This is exactly why we have them! Don't let any of these FlyCa's beat you down, they just want you to forgive them their missed opportunities! Haha!

Actually, has anyone read the part about MO's in the new FAQ? I don't see anything in there about asking for a mulligan in there now.