3 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

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

Being used seriously on an FFG Armada board?

Technically, I guess it would be an Errata and not an FAQ.

48 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

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.

If someone starts taking 20 minutes to move a handful of squadrons, im calling a TO for a ruling of slow play.

I call slow play on all of you.

Too much pre-measuring.

Get the Marshal over here stat.

Its not luck dependent it is skill dependent.

Sorry, but I dont understand this obsession with being able to make the perfect move. Thats not how life works, and while of course we want to try make the best moves possible its a fact that part of trying is sometimes failing.

The squadron game is not built into this system as a mm precision instrument, and fussing with it and fiddling with it to squeeze more effectiveness out of it by trying to turn it into a mm precision instrument is part of the frustration people have with the strength of squadrons, the use of large squadron wings, and the time to game ratio of this system. And its utter nonsense. I mean theres literally parts of the rules that say you can estimate a squadrons final position. Other parts let you bump them around, preposition them for fun and profit... obviously not a high precision setup there quiaff? And squadron movement has always been put down range ruler, position squadron, remove ruler and place squadron so why does everyone think they should be able to shuffle to begin with?

If you are playing in tournaments you need to get used to making decisions under pressure and living with those decisions. Its totally okay if thats not something you are capable of doing, but if so then a live tournament setting maybe not be for you. Ive always been alright with folks stating their placements for purposes of clarity, but Ive also assumed my opponent just put the model where they said they did too...

And Im sorry if this seems harsh but I really just cant understand this.

I am still for chess clocks. Every player gets 70 minutes. If the time is used up, the player lost. And if someone want to "overmeassure", they can do. It is their time .
Maybe a bit to much for a game like Armada, with so many nice and cool players. There are really not as many rule discussions in aramda as they are in other games.

But the time is a really big problem. Especially on smaller tournaments. With a few new players, these extreme messuring take a lot of time. I had some timeouts where i could have take a nap between the moves from my opponent.
What does it have to do with the TR rule changes? Not so much, just had to say it .

The most time is get used on meassuring. And especially on squadrons. So i welcome any chance that would reduce this time. But this rule does not. The whole wording only gives more questions. IF there is a one tool rule, and the distance board has to be on the table for the whole squadron move (like Team *whatevercoloryoulike" say), then why the extra wording with only one distance or range ruler. In this case the FAQ or RRG should get an change to reflect the change in the way the squadrons are moved.

But putting this in the TR can only have one reason. To give a clear sign to the opponent when your squadron movement is over. You remove your hand from the squadron, and it is set.
Everytime i ask my opponenent if the squadron is set, and he want to keep it where it is, he start to check again, because he is afraid he missed something, and my question was the trap to catch the squad.
This way there is no more question need.
It will speed up the squadron movement. Just not really much, but a bit.

Is it valid to have a squadron based size marker, as an assist?

So, use the marker to test placement, ensuring its within movement range of the squadrons initial position, while still at the intended relevant ranges and placement is legal.

Then once confirmed, pick up the squadron and place on the marker?

A big problem with the ruling I can see is that the game as played is very three dimensional. With ship bases and squadron stands usually cluttering the area you are moving to, laying the ruler flat is often not an option.

As others have pointed out also if you have already picked up the squad and you go to place it but it wont physically fit due to other squads and ships, you are now in trouble because you have lost your initial position as point of reference.

This is particularly relevant when using something like a speed 3 Xwing which usually is right at the edge of its range to achieve tactical positioning.

5 hours 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.

I hate to be that guy, and maybe i'm channelling my inner Dras, but doesn't this ruling (RAW) say you can put your squad ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE?

So, theoretically, if you still have you hand on the squad at the end of step 3, you could pick up the ruler, place it to the RIGHT of E, and put your red squadron anywhere that's not beyond the distance 4 line of the ruler?

RAW this out from the documents, you "measure distance/range while moving squadron" (Tourney FAQ) of something on the other side of the table. Then you proceed to "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. " [Rules reference]. This is outside of the "determine course" step of the squad, so you can put the range ruler anywhere.

But this only happens in tourneys who follow the tourney FAQ, in regular games i'm sure as a community we'll all do what WuFame is showing.

37 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Is it valid to have a squadron based size marker, as an assist?

So, use the marker to test placement, ensuring its within movement range of the squadrons initial position, while still at the intended relevant ranges and placement is legal.

Then once confirmed, pick up the squadron and place on the marker?

A big problem with the ruling I can see is that the game as played is very three dimensional. With ship bases and squadron stands usually cluttering the area you are moving to, laying the ruler flat is often not an option.

As others have pointed out also if you have already picked up the squad and you go to place it but it wont physically fit due to other squads and ships, you are now in trouble because you have lost your initial position as point of reference.

This is particularly relevant when using something like a speed 3 Xwing which usually is right at the edge of its range to achieve tactical positioning.

a squadron based size marker is another measurement tool, so you would be invalidating the "only one tool" rule.

Tourney Rules: "A player can only use one tool at a time when measuring range, distance, or movement. A tool is defined as the range ruler, the maneuver tool, or another component such as a token. "

7 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

The answer to "what if I want to avoid an engagement" isn't to move your tool 4 times with your own squadron in hand. It's to pre-measure distance 1 from the target. If you can't gauge a safe space from the only target that matters, then no amount of shuffling is going to help you;

6 hours ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

This also seems like it would only cause further issues with AP prone players, as they would measured excessively before making that one move.

Right kids. Read these.

SLOW PLAY IS NOT CAUSED BY THESE RULES. IT IS CAUSED BY PLAYERS WHO MEASURE EVERYTHING RATHER THAN DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT.

If you dont have a clear plan before you considering activating your squadron you will take an age. You do not need to measure to know that you cant hit Jan Orrs, so decide what escort you are going to hit. You can decide this whilst your opponent is moving their ship rather than staring gormlessly.

If you have a plan, its incredibly quick to move squadrons. Just follow Wufames example. Alternatively, flip the ruler around, measure distance 1 from your targets, plonk the ruler down and move. Job done.

Players who take a long time are impacted by their inability to think quickly. Analysis Paralysis. Dont go blaming the movement rules, they arent at fault.

18 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Right kids. Read these.

SLOW PLAY IS NOT CAUSED BY THESE RULES. IT IS CAUSED BY PLAYERS WHO MEASURE EVERYTHING RATHER THAN DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT.

If you dont have a clear plan before you considering activating your squadron you will take an age. You do not need to measure to know that you cant hit Jan Orrs, so decide what escort you are going to hit. You can decide this whilst your opponent is moving their ship rather than staring gormlessly.

If you have a plan, its incredibly quick to move squadrons. Just follow Wufames example. Alternatively, flip the ruler around, measure distance 1 from your targets, plonk the ruler down and move. Job done.

Players who take a long time are impacted by their inability to think quickly. Analysis Paralysis. Dont go blaming the movement rules, they arent at fault.

Dont mix up being aimless with strategic planing .

Yes, sometimes players are starting to think when it is their turn to move. And suddenly they dont know what they want to do. And this cost a lot of time (and is making me crazy).

But sometimes where are strategic decissions to make, that can take some time. But these are the exception and not the rule.
This might happen because an opponent did something you did not expected. And you have to check/calculate how to react to this. But in the most cases you know what your opponent can do, and can plan ahead of it (i know, a lot are not doing it). But these, who are not calculating ahead, do as well not care so much for the "perfect" squadron move.

5 minutes ago, Tokra said:

But sometimes where are strategic decissions to make, that can take some time. But these are the exception and not the rule.

Agreed. One to two times a game there are moves which matter. Most dont.

9 hours 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.

Step 3 would mean you have to flip the ruler, which means you no longer know the exact position where the squad began. No where in the RRG does it say you can pick up the ruler during the move. So if you realize you can't actually place the squad in the exact place you want, where does it go? Technically they are not committed to the movement since their hand is still on it.

It makes more sense that the rule was redundant. After all, we have the RRG golden rule that says "If a card effect uses the word "cannot", that effect is absolute." But we still have an FAQ saying GT prevents an AG ship from targeting the same ship twice. Same with Garm's FAQ. The rules already say you can't have a 2 of the same token, and Garm's FAQ says the same thing. There are quite a few examples of FFG being redundant in their rules.

2 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Agreed. One to two times a game there are moves which matter. Most dont.

Typically at the start of round 3 I find. Right before **** goes down.

Ships can end up approximately where you want them, but fortunately for us you can't endlessly fiddle and tweak the final position.

Squads are really the odd man (men? women?) out here. Premeasure 10 times. Move. Measure again, from the final position (which is really the same as using a finger/token if you think about it). Then fiddle it around a bit. And set.

Now you drop down the range ruler, size up where you want you squad to be, move it, pull it back/forward a bit, remove your hand. And set.

Since the ruler remains on the table all through the movement, you can't whip out your other tool and start measuring with it. Just the Eyeball mk 1. Closer to nothing the maneuver tool IMO.

How is this going to take longer?

The answer to that is that deliberate slow play will make it take longer.

Not the rule itself, but the intense need most players have to control their squads to within a fraction of a millimeter. If it starts taking minutes to move a single squad, when there are 20 squads total on the table, then it's time to speed it up. Or call a judge.

So maybe the mindset needs to change. Maybe squads too can goof up their placement. Maybe end up at distance 1, when you wanted 2 for your snipe. Or land outside engagement. Or land inside the escort bubble.

This is how I feel right now.

20 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Ships can end up approximately where you want them, but fortunately for us you can't endlessly fiddle and tweak the final position.

Squads are really the odd man (men? women?) out here. Premeasure 10 times. Move. Measure again, from the final position (which is really the same as using a finger/token if you think about it). Then fiddle it around a bit. And set.

Now you drop down the range ruler, size up where you want you squad to be, move it, pull it back/forward a bit, remove your hand. And set.

Since the ruler remains on the table all through the movement, you can't whip out your other tool and start measuring with it. Just the Eyeball mk 1. Closer to nothing the maneuver tool IMO.

How is this going to take longer?

The answer to that is that deliberate slow play will make it take longer.

Not the rule itself, but the intense need most players have to control their squads to within a fraction of a millimeter. If it starts taking minutes to move a single squad, when there are 20 squads total on the table, then it's time to speed it up. Or call a judge.

So maybe the mindset needs to change. Maybe squads too can goof up their placement. Maybe end up at distance 1, when you wanted 2 for your snipe. Or land outside engagement. Or land inside the escort bubble.

Not really. The new TR rules make it total different.
Basicialy nothing has changed on the rules. The only difference is now, that you are suddently allowed to mesure while moving and that the squadron is set when you remove your hand from it. Nothing else.

Quote

Squadron Movement
To move a squadron, its owner proceeds through the following steps:
1 . Determine Course: Place the range ruler flat on the table with the distance side faceup. The center of the distance 1 end of the ruler must be in contact with the squadron’s base.
2 . 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.

This is from the RRG. IF it would be as you wrote, it would have been already this way. No counter meassure. You place the distance at the squadron, move the squadron, remove the distance rules, and place the squadon where you planed.
Maybe it was done different (with meassuring from all sides), but this is how it should be from the rules.

The new rule in the TR mess it really up, and allows the play at it was done all the time.

Quote

Players may measure distance and/or range while moving squadrons. Once a player removes his or her hand from a squadron in a new position, the squadron is considered to have moved and cannot move any further during that activation.

Suddenly the TR rules allow to make measurements during the movement. And even until you take the hand away from the squadron.
The sentense distance and/or range makes it even more clear that you can change the ruler now (hello Mr. Rhymer).

So basicaly the new TR are only a confirmation to something that was done all the time already. Even when it was done wrong.

5 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Right kids. Read these.

SLOW PLAY IS NOT CAUSED BY THESE RULES. IT IS CAUSED BY PLAYERS WHO MEASURE EVERYTHING RATHER THAN DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT.

If you dont have a clear plan before you considering activating your squadron you will take an age. You do not need to measure to know that you cant hit Jan Orrs, so decide what escort you are going to hit. You can decide this whilst your opponent is moving their ship rather than staring gormlessly.

If you have a plan, its incredibly quick to move squadrons. Just follow Wufames example. Alternatively, flip the ruler around, measure distance 1 from your targets, plonk the ruler down and move. Job done.

Players who take a long time are impacted by their inability to think quickly. Analysis Paralysis. Dont go blaming the movement rules, they arent at fault.

Yeah thats nice. Except this rule appears to aimed at fixing that issue, and as has been stated, appears to be more likely to exacerbate it.

What do we call a rule that aims to do one thing and instead does the opposite?

Bad.

If its not targetted at speed of play, I don't really get why it was done in the first place. Could be it jives with some new errata or rule change we haven't seen. Could be a rule that didn't need to exist. So again, its either a bad rule, or a rule we don't have context for yet.

But it improves exactly nothing. So why write it?

To me the fact that the new TR ruling says you can measure distance or range while moving a squadron is damning to the school of thought that this is somehow a redundant ruling to what we already have in the rulebook. There is no way to measure range while moving a squadron "by the book" because your ruler would be occupied on the distance side.

1 minute ago, WuFame said:

To me the fact that the new TR ruling says you can measure distance or range while moving a squadron is damning to the school of thought that this is somehow a redundant ruling to what we already have in the rulebook. There is no way to measure range while moving a squadron "by the book" because your ruler would be occupied on the distance side.

That's why this is so **** confusing.

Maybe you get your opponent to measure for you.

Maybe Mad is onto something and the FAQ has a change we haven't seen yet.

Maybe FFG wrote the rules wrong or copy pasted from a different document.

@FFG Michael Gernes Please tell us!

3 minutes ago, WuFame said:

To me the fact that the new TR ruling says you can measure distance or range while moving a squadron is damning to the school of thought that this is somehow a redundant ruling to what we already have in the rulebook. There is no way to measure range while moving a squadron "by the book" because your ruler would be occupied on the distance side.

Yep, 100% agreed, and it's what I've been saying off and on in this thread as well. There's just no way to actually measure while moving unless you break the one-tool rule and no allowance was made for that. You can do more casual "good enough" measurements earlier but the rules don't support those at all. Very confusing!

Maybe the wording means exactly what it says and it's saying the way people have always moved squadrons is allowed, with the added stipulation that now your hand can't leave the model.

11 hours 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.

And if you repeat that exchange for 20+ squads a turn and we have torturous long tourney games, in a game that already takes a lot of time due to squadrons.

I'm still in favor of no pre-measuring (measuring in the space formed by the vertical extension of the play area), for anything, including the maneuver tool. Choose your movement clicks, place the maneuver tool, and move. Done. For firing, announce your attack, ensure it's a legal shot (shooting at escort squad if within 1) and then measure range. Same for ships. If you are not in range, too bad, no attack. Seems like the game would play much faster and require more intuitive skill.

I haven't read this entire thread but think this is a great rule. I can't tell you how many times I've waited around for several minutes while someone is fiddling with the placement of a squadron, checking range to everything around it.

4 minutes ago, emfrank72 said:

I haven't read this entire thread but think this is a great rule. I can't tell you how many times I've waited around for several minutes while someone is fiddling with the placement of a squadron, checking range to everything around it.

Edit: I also meant to quote Thraug but I am on my phone. My bad.

Strongly against.

Armada should not be a game that is primarily a test of eyesight and the ability to guess based on visual impression. One of my good friends who plays is blind as a bat without his glasses, and only okay with them. He shouldn't be penalized.

Guessing is not an appropriate mechanic for a grand strategy game occurring in space with advanced sensor gear.