25 minutes ago, Mogrok said:

So you are basically trying to fit that into the Move Squadron: Pick up the squadron and position it anywhere along the center of the ruler up to the line that marks the end of the distance band matching the squadron’s speed value. The squadron’s base cannot be placed beyond that line. Then remove the range ruler and place the squadron in the final position.

Well if people want to be that nit picky then they won't know where their original point is nor will they know if they go past the max distance limit...therefore possibly cheating.

COMMUNICATION

Step 1:

Sam: Hey Jim, as you can clearly see here, my YT-2400 is in Range 4 of all three of these squadrons from it's current position. You agree, yes?
Jim: Yes, I am a thinking human being and can definitely read a ruler
Sam: I'd like to be in range of this Target (T), but outside of this Intel (I) and Escort (E).
Jim: It's super weird that you clarified the letters that began those words, but sure.

Step 2:

Sam: As you can see, my YT-2400 is within distance 4 and that I am still touching it.
Jim: Yep, I can still read a ruler.

Step 3:

Sam: Now I'm moving my squadron backward along the same path so that it's out of distance 1 of I and E but inside distance 1 of T. As you'll notice, I have not yet removed my hand from it.
Jim: Yeah, and what's great about reality is that we can conclude rationally that your ending location is a shorter distance away from your starting location than your previous location, since you are moving backward, albiet a smaller distance, along the same trajectory you just came from.
Sam: You are a far cooler person that the internet prepared me for, Jim.

3 hours ago, Reinholt said:

FFG: please no.

Either roll this back or repeal the one tool rule for squadron movement please. Right now if I want to move my squadrons with precision I can do that via triangulation, but I'll warn you right now that all of my games at worlds are going to time out around turn 3-4 if you make me move squadrons this way.

This is just punishing for no reason. I totally get why the hand on squad rule works to prevent fiddling, but the reason for the fiddling was the one tool rule. Now if you can neither fiddle nor use more than one tool, you actually have to do all the precision measurement for every single squadron or leave a token at the starting point to re-measure over and over and over without removing the hand from the squad.

This seems really well intentioned. In reality it's going to add 45+ min to the squadron phase if you play it RAW or lead to rage induced table flips.

And God forbid something gets bumped.

The tables at the Compleat Strategist are pretty heavy. Make sure you get some bicep curls in before Saturday!

4 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Your interpretation is correct, I believe. You can declare what you want all you like, but once your hand is off the squadron it's committed to its position regardless of whether it meets the standards of your declaration. Given you need to put the range ruler down to measure the maximum movement potential of the squadron compared to its starting position while you're moving it, you can't also use an additional distance ruler (or pick up the first one as it needs to be used to ensure it's a legal move) to check for maximum engagement range, either, as that would be breaking the one-tool rule. TL;DR: you can premeasure all you like and eyeball it, but you need to drop that squadron somewhere and hopefully it's where you like. Being clever and trying to deploy at maximum engagement range may turn out to bite you in the arse, so be careful.

What I'm curious about is what exactly you're supposed to do if someone is trying to move a squadron to a point where they actually won't fit. Sometimes it's not 100% clear if a squadron can land somewhere and trying to move it there creates a weird quantum state where what to do exactly if it doesn't fit isn't clear. I suppose so long as you have the range ruler clearly on the table to show its start position, you can go back and try again, but if that range ruler gets bumped or moved, you're in a weird spot...

There is still room for precision, no?

For example, if I am moving an A-Wing somewhere that is clearly distance 3, I can eyeball the movement once it has been premeasured , and use the tool to get the engagement I want, so long as I keep my hand on the A wing while I measure.

The room for precision comes from learning to correctly judge your positioning and distance ranges. I'm glad they've changed this, but I'd like to add the additional rule: Once you pick up the squadron, you can no longer pre-measure anything. You are now committed to moving the squadron once and once only. Place it down at a range you want, and if you've missed or if you've ended up engaged or Intel has you heavy then that's your move.

Players should not be getting to move an activated squadron "back" until it's no longer at risk of being incorrectly placed, at least initially. There needs to be some semblance of risk and commitment, otherwise we should just remove squadrons from the game. The system in place allows players to pre-measure all of this information prior to the movement and come do a decision about where to best place the squad, there is no valid reason this should be happening after the player has moved their squadron.

1 hour ago, WuFame said:

COMMUNICATION

Step 1:

Sam: Hey Jim, as you can clearly see here, my YT-2400 is in Range 4 of all three of these squadrons from it's current position. You agree, yes?
Jim: Yes, I am a thinking human being and can definitely read a ruler
Sam: I'd like to be in range of this Target (T), but outside of this Intel (I) and Escort (E).
Jim: It's super weird that you clarified the letters that began those words, but sure.

Step 2:

Sam: As you can see, my YT-2400 is within distance 4 and that I am still touching it.
Jim: Yep, I can still read a ruler.

Step 3:

Sam: Now I'm moving my squadron backward along the same path so that it's out of distance 1 of I and E but inside distance 1 of T. As you'll notice, I have not yet removed my hand from it.
Jim: Yeah, and what's great about reality is that we can conclude rationally that your ending location is a shorter distance away from your starting location than your previous location, since you are moving backward, albiet a smaller distance, along the same trajectory you just came from.
Sam: You are a far cooler person that the internet prepared me for, Jim.

If only it was possible for humans to be able to think clearly using their brain and communicate clearly (using proper words) with their voice box and mouth.

If only...

If only...

1 hour ago, WuFame said:

COMMUNICATION

Step 1:

Sam: Hey Jim, as you can clearly see here, my YT-2400 is in Range 4 of all three of these squadrons from it's current position. You agree, yes?
Jim: Yes, I am a thinking human being and can definitely read a ruler
Sam: I'd like to be in range of this Target (T), but outside of this Intel (I) and Escort (E).
Jim: It's super weird that you clarified the letters that began those words, but sure.

Step 2:

Sam: As you can see, my YT-2400 is within distance 4 and that I am still touching it.
Jim: Yep, I can still read a ruler.

Step 3:

Sam: Now I'm moving my squadron backward along the same path so that it's out of distance 1 of I and E but inside distance 1 of T. As you'll notice, I have not yet removed my hand from it.
Jim: Yeah, and what's great about reality is that we can conclude rationally that your ending location is a shorter distance away from your starting location than your previous location, since you are moving backward, albiet a smaller distance, along the same trajectory you just came from.
Sam: You are a far cooler person that the internet prepared me for, Jim.

Sure man, and thats what we've all been doing and its great but why did we need this nonsense rule thats basically begging for some dude with the social graces of a rabid monkey on meth suffering from ocd to snag us when god forbid we take our hand off our squadron to pull something or scratch our nose? I mean Jim sounds cool and all but what about Ben?

Sam: So I'll just move this here, I want to engage your squadrons A, B and C but not D so Ill just put this here, keeping my hand on it and I'll just bring it ba--oh whoops my hand slipped off. Anyway---

Ben: *Cackling Maniaclly* Fool! You have activated my trap card! Because of some short sighted over-legislation on the part of FFG, I am now technically correct when I force you to leave your squadron right there, engaged with squadron D! D for Di*king you to Death!

Sam: Really dude? I mean seriously? What rational person behaves like that?

Ben: Sorry dude maybe in a casual game but this is a tournament...

Sam: Classic Ben.

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

There is still room for precision, no?

For example, if I am moving an A-Wing somewhere that is clearly distance 3, I can eyeball the movement once it has been premeasured , and use the tool to get the engagement I want, so long as I keep my hand on the A wing while I measure.

The problem is the distance ruler should remain on the table the whole time to be clear where your starting position was and where you're allowed to move. There is no mechanic in the game for "your squadron is basically good enough and we know it could've gone further so now you can pick up the distance ruler to futz around with your squadron a little bit more." That's the kind of thing you can agree on between casual players, sure, but there's no actual mechanic for allowing that if you're going to enforce the one-tool rule.

I feel like whenever these discussions come up I need to restate that I'm not an unholy terror of a rules stickler to play against on things like this. I'm okay with being pretty laid-back about this kind of thing, but we need to understand when there are rules to cover what we'd like to do and when they're aren't. You can't expect people to play by an interpretation of the rules with no mechanics backing them up, although FFG is always welcome to add or change mechanics to assist us in this regard.

4 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

The problem is the distance ruler should remain on the table the whole time to be clear where your starting position was and where you're allowed to move. There is no mechanic in the game for "your squadron is basically good enough and we know it could've gone further so now you can pick up the distance ruler to futz around with your squadron a little bit more." That's the kind of thing you can agree on between casual players, sure, but there's no actual mechanic for allowing that if you're going to enforce the one-tool rule.

I feel like whenever these discussions come up I need to restate that I'm not an unholy terror of a rules stickler to play against on things like this. I'm okay with being pretty laid-back about this kind of thing, but we need to understand when there are rules to cover what we'd like to do and when they're aren't. You can't expect people to play by an interpretation of the rules with no mechanics backing them up, although FFG is always welcome to add or change mechanics to assist us in this regard.

Ben would be within the rules if he told you he wont stip to the fact that your speed 5 defender can move 3 inches away to be distance 1 of whatever, and you must measure your move from starting point.

Now, fortunately I don't see this as becoming a real issue because Arnada players tend to be way too cool to pull this nonsense. But why write it in? Unnecessary rules are bad rules.

1 hour ago, WuFame said:

COMMUNICATION

Step 1:

Sam: Hey Jim, as you can clearly see here, my YT-2400 is in Range 4 of all three of these squadrons from it's current position. You agree, yes?
Jim: Yes, I am a thinking human being and can definitely read a ruler
Sam: I'd like to be in range of this Target (T), but outside of this Intel (I) and Escort (E).
Jim: It's super weird that you clarified the letters that began those words, but sure.

Step 2:

Sam: As you can see, my YT-2400 is within distance 4 and that I am still touching it.
Jim: Yep, I can still read a ruler.

Step 3:

Sam: Now I'm moving my squadron backward along the same path so that it's out of distance 1 of I and E but inside distance 1 of T. As you'll notice, I have not yet removed my hand from it.
Jim: Yeah, and what's great about reality is that we can conclude rationally that your ending location is a shorter distance away from your starting location than your previous location, since you are moving backward, albiet a smaller distance, along the same trajectory you just came from.
Sam: You are a far cooler person that the internet prepared me for, Jim.

Well done, old bean!

9 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Ben would be within the rules if he told you he wont stip to the fact that your speed 5 defender can move 3 inches away to be distance 1 of whatever, and you must measure your move from starting point.

Now, fortunately I don't see this as becoming a real issue because Arnada players tend to be way too cool to pull this nonsense. But why write it in? Unnecessary rules are bad rules.

For what it's worth, I think FFG was well-intentioned with the rule. The "squadron shuffle" method of moving squadrons isn't supported anywhere in the actual squadron rules and it can drag a bit with perfectionist players so FFG put the kibosh on it. Unfortunately I don't think their wording for what is allowed works with the one-tool rule also being enforced and so you get a lot of questions about whether this change was necessary and also how one enforces it in light of the one-tool rule also being in effect.

It doesn't help that you have a lot of different ways people actually use squadrons which bend the squadron rules. It's totally understandable why they do this - squadrons are the fiddliest bits of Armada and for their points they're easily the most time-intensive. A lot of people have "shortcut" methods for getting squadrons done "close enough" and it overall works just fine. The problem is the shortcut methods aren't really covered by the rules and so there's this gray area of what exactly are we as a pair of people playing this game supposed to do when it comes to squadrons. What I think is "good enough" you may interpret as "being too liberal with squadron movement" (the old 'gamer's inch' of extra movement on a squadron moved 'close enough' can make a big difference in the right circumstances) and there needs to be some kind of commonly-accepted standard by which we actually use our squadrons, particularly in competitive events where we can't assume everyone's part of the same community and therefore the same rough standards are applied to everyone. I am not personally a big believer in this exact "fix" but I see what FFG was going for. Even some clarification if they want it to be "squadron hard mode" where you can premeasure prior to moving the squadron but then once that squadron is picked up, you just need to drop it within range with no extra measuring allowed and that's final would at least make it clear how they intend for us to use squadrons, exactly.

5 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

For what it's worth, I think FFG was well-intentioned with the rule. The "squadron shuffle" method of moving squadrons isn't supported anywhere in the actual squadron rules and it can drag a bit with perfectionist players so FFG put the kibosh on it. Unfortunately I don't think their wording for what is allowed works with the one-tool rule also being enforced and so you get a lot of questions about whether this change was necessary and also how one enforces it in light of the one-tool rule also being in effect.

It doesn't help that you have a lot of different ways people actually use squadrons which bend the squadron rules. It's totally understandable why they do this - squadrons are the fiddliest bits of Armada and for their points they're easily the most time-intensive. A lot of people have "shortcut" methods for getting squadrons done "close enough" and it overall works just fine. The problem is the shortcut methods aren't really covered by the rules and so there's this gray area of what exactly are we as a pair of people playing this game supposed to do when it comes to squadrons. What I think is "good enough" you may interpret as "being too liberal with squadron movement" (the old 'gamer's inch' of extra movement on a squadron moved 'close enough' can make a big difference in the right circumstances) and there needs to be some kind of commonly-accepted standard by which we actually use our squadrons, particularly in competitive events where we can't assume everyone's part of the same community and therefore the same rough standards are applied to everyone. I am not personally a big believer in this exact "fix" but I see what FFG was going for. Even some clarification if they want it to be "squadron hard mode" where you can premeasure prior to moving the squadron but then once that squadron is picked up, you just need to drop it within range with no extra measuring allowed and that's final would at least make it clear how they intend for us to use squadrons, exactly.

The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

Counterpoint: it is actually paved with Tom Hanks' weird thin mustache.

Here's a thought guys: If you're really concerned about maintaining distance, why not just premeasure back from your intended target until you find the correct point, and then move there? If the plan is to study out to the finest detail every single engagement bubble at or near your target, you should be doing that before you move.

I agree that in a casual game, go for it. But I'm seeing lots of squadron games go to or near time because of the constantly shuffling to the "perfect position."

You know, I'm starting to kind of wish that squadrons had to be placed on the distance band exactly just like ships have to lock into the maneuver tool. That would eliminate this wishy-washy "will they or won't they" issue.

2 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Here's a thought guys: If you're really concerned about maintaining distance, why not just premeasure back from your intended target until you find the correct point, and then move there? If the plan is to study out to the finest detail every single engagement bubble at or near your target, you should be doing that before you move.

I agree that in a casual game, go for it. But I'm seeing lots of squadron games go to or near time because of the constantly shuffling to the "perfect position."

You know, I'm starting to kind of wish that squadrons had to be placed on the distance band exactly just like ships have to lock into the maneuver tool. That would eliminate this wishy-washy "will they or won't they" issue.

You do that. Then you move there, and you just take a quick measure to make sure that you put the squad where you intended. Because you cant just measure where you want to go and then mark it.(Which imo would still be the fastest, best way to do it. But those aren't the rules.)This was easy and at least in my experience, done quickly. It needed no additional regulation.

My issue is less with the rule itself and more that it doesnt need to exist, and as such it shouldnt exist.

2 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Here's a thought guys: If you're really concerned about maintaining distance, why not just premeasure back from your intended target until you find the correct point, and then move there? If the plan is to study out to the finest detail every single engagement bubble at or near your target, you should be doing that before you move.

I agree that in a casual game, go for it. But I'm seeing lots of squadron games go to or near time because of the constantly shuffling to the "perfect position."

You know, I'm starting to kind of wish that squadrons had to be placed on the distance band exactly just like ships have to lock into the maneuver tool. That would eliminate this wishy-washy "will they or won't they" issue.

While this sounds good in theory, the problem with this is you must then hold that point in your mind, while trying to add in the other points which are coming from other squadrons. People shouldn't be penalized for their mind not being as good as other peoples at creating a mental "map" which is plotting said perfect point. This is not a guessing game, and it is simply much quicker to move your squadron and then adjust it than it is to plot said point, and try to correctly move you squadron there, while taking into account your own base size. It becomes a superfluous mental exercise in spatial relations. If you truly are regularly running into players taking too much time with their squadrons, I'd suggest looking into the slow play rules. I know numbers of great players, all of whom have no issue in using max squadron lists without going to time.

Honestly, I would 100% be down for an addendum that states "the one-tool rule does not apply only in circumstances when you are moving a squadron. You may use a distance ruler to determine their maximum movement distance as well as a second distance ruler or token to assist you in placing them where you wish within that maximum movement distance." Voila! Not we can get our squadrons to where we want them without fighting over if we're actually allowed to do that or not. The main downside is it means people would be given an additional incentive to buy another distance ruler or at least a distance 1 squadron stick. Those types of measurement aides are very common in competitive play for most miniatures wargames so that's not really a big ask, in my mind.

8 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

While this sounds good in theory, the problem with this is you must then hold that point in your mind, while trying to add in the other points which are coming from other squadrons. People shouldn't be penalized for their mind not being as good as other peoples at creating a mental "map" which is plotting said perfect point. This is not a guessing game, and it is simply much quicker to move your squadron and then adjust it than it is to plot said point, and try to correctly move you squadron there, while taking into account your own base size. It becomes a superfluous mental exercise in spatial relations. If you truly are regularly running into players taking too much time with their squadrons, I'd suggest looking into the slow play rules. I know numbers of great players, all of whom have no issue in using max squadron lists without going to time.

This is essentially my point; I don't have any issues in the previous paradigm and I've yet to have a tournament game go to time.

However, being totally blunt, I expect the majority of my games will go to time in the new paradigm. I was doing some practice maneuvering on my board tonight, and here's the problem: I can still get my squadrons to move dead on target, almost every single time, with shocking precision. It also takes a hell of a lot longer. I have to pre-measure every angle first, then I go back and double check to make sure there is not an error (because now once I start moving, I have to leave the tool on the table to track my starting point and I need to know precisely where I intend to land), then I finally move the squadron.

One turn of squadron movement used to take me a few minutes. I expect it will take 20+ once engagement starts now. Again, why, FFG? The pain of placing a squadron incorrectly can cost a game when you are playing in a tournament against other good players, thus I'm going to make sure to take the appropriate amount of time to get it right. That's not even slow play; I'm using the rule you gave me! However, I think this rule played to the letter will dramatically slow down squadrons.

Just let people use two rulers to move a squad, honestly, if you want the chess-style hands on rule.

26 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

While this sounds good in theory, the problem with this is you must then hold that point in your mind, while trying to add in the other points which are coming from other squadrons. People shouldn't be penalized for their mind not being as good as other peoples at creating a mental "map" which is plotting said perfect point. This is not a guessing game, and it is simply much quicker to move your squadron and then adjust it than it is to plot said point, and try to correctly move you squadron there, while taking into account your own base size. It becomes a superfluous mental exercise in spatial relations. If you truly are regularly running into players taking too much time with their squadrons, I'd suggest looking into the slow play rules. I know numbers of great players, all of whom have no issue in using max squadron lists without going to time.

Then what's the point of having ranges for anything? Just declare if you feel like being engaged or not and if you could make it to engagement range. It's faster and requires less hassle.

I don't understand the new paradigm you are talking about Reinholt. I don't see how this rule damages the squadron shuffle at all except to say that you can't remove your hand from it. If anything, the addition of being able to measure range and distance while moving a squadron, seems to strengthen the case for the shuffle, not weaken it.

I really am just fine saying you can use more than one tool while moving a squadron (Again, the shuffle itself is already using two tools, as the squadron itself is a standin for a token) but this argument that this addition somehow will make games longer... I don't understand that at all.

14 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Then what's the point of having ranges for anything? Just declare if you feel like being engaged or not and if you could make it to engagement range. It's faster and requires less hassle.

The snark is real, lol. I'll let you come to your own answer on that one, there are several.

Here's a question:

Is this a change in response to player behavior, or a change in response to the game mechanics regarding squadron movement? If the latter, is this a change in response to the existing rules, or to a potential mechanical change in the rules in a future FAQ or update??

13 minutes ago, WuFame said:

I don't understand the new paradigm you are talking about Reinholt. I don't see how this rule damages the squadron shuffle at all except to say that you can't remove your hand from it. If anything, the addition of being able to measure range and distance while moving a squadron, seems to strengthen the case for the shuffle, not weaken it.

I really am just fine saying you can use more than one tool while moving a squadron (Again, the shuffle itself is already using two tools, as the squadron itself is a standin for a token) but this argument that this addition somehow will make games longer... I don't understand that at all.

I think Rienholt is coming at it from the view of this is intended to shift play towards the single move idea. That once you place your intial move you are locked in to that. I think his points are quite valid for that view.

As is, with the current reading all it this ruling seems to do is be a slight inconvenience as you need to keep one hand on the piece while playing as you have in the past. Which is more a pointless annoyance than anything else.

2 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Here's a question:

Is this a change in response to player behavior, or a change in response to the game mechanics regarding squadron movement? If the latter, is this a change in response to the existing rules, or to a potential mechanical change in the rules in a future FAQ or update??

I think you hit the nail on the head on this one. I think the first case is what it should NOT be. If the devs decide on a core rules change, well I may not agree with it for the sake of the game I enjoy, but I would have less of an issue with it.

2 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Here's a question:

Is this a change in response to player behavior, or a change in response to the game mechanics regarding squadron movement? If the latter, is this a change in response to the existing rules, or to a potential mechanical change in the rules in a future FAQ or update??

Dude now you are talking nonsense. I've never even seen the letters F-A-Q used like that before.

Just now, JJs Juggernaut said:

The snark is real, lol. I'll let you come to your own answer on that one, there are several.

It's not necessarily snark. It's a legitimate question: If the goal is to fine-tune knife-edge engage single squadrons by millimeters or less, then what's the point of the squadron movement system? The cardboard tools and even the official acrylics aren't consistently precise enough across iterations to be 100% certain that the distances are right and the existing rule system tells you to "eyeball" the distances when models would interfere with the placement of the tool.