So I just received a response from FFG regarding the one-tool rule.

Here's my original email:

I had a few questions regarding the one-tool rule. Specifically...

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?

Basically 1 and 3 are questions about using non-component stand-ins that aren't explicitly banned from being used as replacements for components that are disallowed from being combined. If a token+ruler are not allowed but a finger+ruler are okay, then it seems the restriction is easy to subvert.

#2 is asking how exact one needs to be when moving squadrons and if intent when moving is respected or if players are expected to eyeball it using whatever measurements they can without breaking the one-tool rule and then abide by the placement of the squadron once it's done moving.

And here is the response:

Wow, that makes squadron movement a LOT trickier and more time consuming. Prepare to see people re-measuring to the same few squadrons several times before placing one down.

Well, I guess that means that you need to navigate by the stars, the way they used to.

(ie. put one tool down, and - instead of putting your finger down - note the star specks on the playmat, and then use the second tool accordingly.)

Wow, that makes squadron movement a LOT trickier and more time consuming. Prepare to see people re-measuring to the same few squadrons several times before placing one down.

The answer to 2 runs dangerously close to creating conflicting answers in separate emails, for example, this is in the current FAQ already and the answer is directly from a FFG email. The answer in one email is actually quite a bit more expansive than an answer in a separate email.

I feel, at least in that regard, we have two answers for two situations


One for casual play

The other for Formal and Premier.

No conflict there. Just know what level your Tournament is ...

I feel, at least in that regard, we have two answers for two situations

One for casual play

The other for Formal and Premier.

No conflict there. Just know what level your Tournament is ...

We know minimally that the email above was setting the standard for formal and premier play. I'd like to see a clarification stating otherwise for the other one. I see both of them as official. For casual play, it is a matter of whatever you and your opponent are ok with. Even in tournaments, if you and your opponent consent, there's leeway. Its just that as you go up the scale, the more likely you are to find someone who is an absolute stickler for the letter of the rules and it is fair to know exactly what the letter of the rules are in every case. What we don't want is for one player to work off of one "official" response and for another player to work off of another "official" response.

I'd rather see this translate into the official FAQ so that everyone can be clear. If they want to settle one as okay for regular tournaments and the other premier, that is fine, so long as everyone can be clear about it ahead of time.

I'm sure it will translate to an FAQ in time.

Our next FAQ is due by the end of September.\

Because, remember, Email answers to questions mean precisely squat at an actual Event to the player, as they're not covered as allowed materials for players to bring

Honestly, I feel a lot of the "issues" that "need to be FAQ'd" don't need to be, if people were just respectful to each other...

Ideal world, I know. But some days, like now, I get old and bitter and disappointed in the world and start rambling

if people were just respectful to each other...

This, so much this. I've had all of one game ever (and not actually in Armada, it was X-wing) where I had to deal with disrespect. Most of the time, I think everyone is good. Most rules cover that one guy who has to be that way.

I'm glad they have clarified the sqns...I was getting tired of someone moving 8 sqns and then shuffling them around as they didn't fit properly....like chess move it...place it...then hopefully you are close enough...almost like the main capital ships.

I'm fine with jiggling each squadron around as it is being moved. I would be pretty irritated of someone started moving a squadron around to make room when it was placed 3 squadron activations ago. I haven't seen that happen around these parts - do you really see it somewhat frequently? I mean, there's a limit to what you can reasonably expect people to tolerate, no?

I'm glad they have clarified the sqns...I was getting tired of someone moving 8 sqns and then shuffling them around as they didn't fit properly....like chess move it...place it...then hopefully you are close enough...

Personally, I play pretty fast and loose with squadrons, but re-reading the LtP and RR does lend itself to a stricter squadron movement. As per the rules, you measure from the edge of the squadron's base, slide the squadron along the ruler up to its max range, then place it down. Since you can only use one tool at a time, it looks like you cannot adjust after this point, because the squadron is on the table.

As I've said before, though, stating intention can be huge here. It can help avoid arguments and save all of that time pre- and re-measuring.

I'm glad they have clarified the sqns...I was getting tired of someone moving 8 sqns and then shuffling them around as they didn't fit properly....like chess move it...place it...then hopefully you are close enough...

In chess, piece movement isn't finalized until you remove your hand. So if you slide a piece forward, you can legally keep your finger on it while you double-check that it's the move you wanted to make. But if they were moving othwr squadrons to fit the activated one in there, that's illegal by any interpretation of the rules.

Personally, I play pretty fast and loose with squadrons, but re-reading the LtP and RR does lend itself to a stricter squadron movement. As per the rules, you measure from the edge of the squadron's base, slide the squadron along the ruler up to its max range, then place it down. Since you can only use one tool at a time, it looks like you cannot adjust after this point, because the squadron is on the table.

As I've said before, though, stating intention can be huge here. It can help avoid arguments and save all of that time pre- and re-measuring.

I know how chess plays...you also don't readjust how a previous piece is placed after you move your next piece which is what I was getting at.

Lets not even mention the toll it takes on the the game length (tournament time limit) as well.

As an aside, does tool size matter? Or does it only matter how you use it? /sly

I'm fine with jiggling each squadron around as it is being moved. I would be pretty irritated of someone started moving a squadron around to make room when it was placed 3 squadron activations ago. I haven't seen that happen around these parts - do you really see it somewhat frequently? I mean, there's a limit to what you can reasonably expect people to tolerate, no?

I see this often in beginners. That's perfectly clarified in the rules already without the need for the further clarifications in this thread. If an opponent in a casual game asked for a take-back, I'd be inclined to grant it provided it wasn't excessive.

Chess is a good analogy for placement. Once your hand leaves the piece, that's a move. That would be a good definition of "placed." Given both email clarifications, there's probably leeway for moving the piece along the ruler, making final adjustments, and then removing the hand, signifying the end of the move.

I'm glad they have clarified the sqns...I was getting tired of someone moving 8 sqns and then shuffling them around as they didn't fit properly....like chess move it...place it...then hopefully you are close enough...

In chess, piece movement isn't finalized until you remove your hand. So if you slide a piece forward, you can legally keep your finger on it while you double-check that it's the move you wanted to make. But if they were moving othwr squadrons to fit the activated one in there, that's illegal by any interpretation of the rules.

Personally, I play pretty fast and loose with squadrons, but re-reading the LtP and RR does lend itself to a stricter squadron movement. As per the rules, you measure from the edge of the squadron's base, slide the squadron along the ruler up to its max range, then place it down. Since you can only use one tool at a time, it looks like you cannot adjust after this point, because the squadron is on the table.

As I've said before, though, stating intention can be huge here. It can help avoid arguments and save all of that time pre- and re-measuring.

I know how chess plays...you also don't readjust how a previous piece is placed after you move your next piece which is what I was getting at.

That's why I included that last sentence. I wasn't sure if you were referring to people moving pieces that had previously been placed, or the OP point about adjusting the squadron you were actually moving.

Given both email clarifications, there's probably leeway for moving the piece along the ruler, making final adjustments, and then removing the hand, signifying the end of the move.

I think your e-mail response definitely allows this, but Snip's doesn't really clarify. It only prohibits placing tokens or a finger. And while this is the way I play squadrons, the rules are murky. According to the rules, you place the measuring tool in base with the squadron, slide the squadron down the tool, then remove the tool and place the squadron on the table. Since you can't check for Engagement until the tool is removed, and you can't remove the tool until you place the squadron, any of those little adjustments once the tool has been removed would be illegal by the rules as written. Which does make sense, I suppose. Once you remove the tool to place the squadron, you have lost your point of reference for exactly where the squadron started and exactly how much further it can move.

But what if you slide the squadron down the tool, remove the tool to place the squadron, but "hover" the squadron over the table without placing it so that you can now use the freed up tool to measure for Engagement and make minor adjustments? Not an argument I would personally use, but I could see it being used. After all, the rules also say you can use either side of the range ruler "at any time."

And the problem here is that I can play someone in round one of a tourney who feels the way I do about squadrons, and then round two someone who insists you can't do that. You can't reference unofficial materials at a tournament, so an e-mail reply or Armada forums community consensus is useless. Something in the FAQ that gives a clear-cut definition would end all arguments and give all players a consistent experience with squadron movement.

This rule is "worst rule eva". The intent is to make the game faster, how is this achieved?

This rule is "worst rule eva". The intent is to make the game faster, how is this achieved?

By forcing players to commit to their moves and stop going back and forth and readjusting six times after placing a squadron a 10th of a millimeter too close.

If you're that desperate to not make a mistake, then just have your ships and squadrons run away off to a corner where they can't be shot at.

This rule is "worst rule eva". The intent is to make the game faster, how is this achieved?

By forcing players to commit to their moves and stop going back and forth and readjusting six times after placing a squadron a 10th of a millimeter too close.

If you're that desperate to not make a mistake, then just have your ships and squadrons run away off to a corner where they can't be shot at.

No, he means that rather than being able to make that perfectly sensible adjustment in a fairly timely fashion, there's going to be a lot more measuring and remeasuring the squadron distances prior to committing to any move, creating the possibility for a lot longer squadron moves. Its less an issue of being afraid of making a mistake and more a degree of care of precision and attention to detail. There's a fine balance here. For example, in chess where you have a clock that constantly runs and measures time accurately for each player, you want to end the game with almost all of the time on your clock used up. You can look around the tournament hall at the end and watch as the lowest rated tables finish typically much faster than the higher rated ones. Now, I almost always move quickly and when I make mistakes, it is because I'm rushing myself, but if you have a position that is absolutely and critically going to determine the course of the game, as some of the squadron moves on turns 2 and 3 will, then you very well should take the time to get it right. The trick is finding that right balance where you made a good sensible and intelligent move quickly versus just outright playing annoyingly slow.

I HATE rejiggering squadrons.

I hate it with the burning passion of 1000 suns.

I will announce what I want to do. I will measure to try and place the squadron. But if I screw up and it is engaged with something I don't want it engaged with, or it missed range 1 of something I wanted to shoot, I deal with it. I have fortunately never seen someone trying to rearrange squadrons they have already placed to fit something in, but just someone fiddling with the squadrons bothers me.

That being said, I also approach it from the chess mentality. Once my hand comes off it is moved.

I wonder if this responder consulted the FAQ or other email answers. Seems like it will slow down play for a lot of people quite a bit.

I don't want to get screwed by placing it one millimeter to far in any direction, so I'll take longer to move things around.

Honestly I will start to move a squadron by taking the distance ruler in hand and measuring to the point I want it. Then I will move the squad to where I think I want it, but not put it down or at least not release it. Then, If I am trying to only engage a single squad I will back it up until it is in the proper range. Linear movement only. If it isn't right when I place it and remove my hand, oh well. If you have picked up the squad from where it was, you are locked into putting it along the ruler anyway, as the ruler is placed currently. In a tourney, I will give leeway to folks doing the same, unless they are obviously moving to "see what works best". I will be as strict as my opponent is, generally.

And as far as the finger rule, I'm probably in the other camp. I feel like if FFG didn't want folks doing this, they would have defined a finger as illegal in marking when they re-wrote the FAQ on measuring devices fairly recently. I don't do it, but I don't think I'd yell for a TO if I saw someone else doing it to me. Again, I will play as strict as my opponent. If they want to measure that accurately I will do the same. I think it makes the game more even.

After this forum pooed all over me, I can't tell you how vindicated I feel right now on #2.

I'm just gonna sit here smugly now.

Smug in Poo ?