16 minutes ago, backupsidekick said:

You imply that the range ruler can only be used to measure range. You implied that you can't premeasure movement. None of that shows up in the rules, unless you make interpretations on intent. My suggestion is that if you read the rules verbatim, you don't have to make any assumptions on intent or implications, simply that you can use the range ruler and you can't use the movement templates. Simple as that.

Well, to be clear, I'm not implying the things you say, I'm inferring them. But whatever, that's just semantics. The real issue we're getting caught up on is this whole "why" issue. I know it's difficult to fully see things from an opposing point of view, but there are some of us who do truly get caught up in the "why". When someone says to me "You can go through these 4 doors, but not this one", some people would just say "Ok", and others would say "Why?"; I'm the latter (I'd make a terrible soldier). Same thing applies here; when I see a rule that says "You can use this tool to measure, but not this one", I immediately think "Why?". I can't help it, it is what it is. You seem to be fine with just saying "Ok", and there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, sometimes I wish I could do the same. But this one has me puzzled; why ban the use of movement templates for premeasuring if it wasn't to prevent premeasurement for movement purposes? Is it literally just a timesaver, just to use one tool instead of many for premeasuring? That seems odd to me.

27 minutes ago, backupsidekick said:

FFG knew people would figure out how the range ruler matches up with the movement templates. That's a no brainer. Any competitive gamer would figure out how to use the range ruler to determine the allowed premeasuring. You're assuming FFG, with plenty of competitive game experience, overlooked the possibility of a player figuring out how the range ruler and the movement templates match up. Not likely.

Funnily enough, now YOU'RE the one assuming intent ;).

14 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

During a game? Yeah, it might. That gets into a semantic argument over whether or not using the range ruler to measure a template is using a movement template to predict movement.

I guess that's my point here; rule 62.2 is far from cut and dry, unlike some in this thread are making it out to be. Rule 62.1 IS cut and dry; it's hard to misinterpret the way that it's written. Just as food for thought, though, what if the designers actually intended for 62.1 to include the word "range", and it got cut because of a simple editing mistake:

"Imaginary" 62.1: Players are allowed to measure range using the range ruler at any time.

Now we have a completely different conversation. Ok, maybe I'm just muddying the waters now, I'll stop.

13 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

Well, to be clear, I'm not implying the things you say, I'm inferring them. But whatever, that's just semantics. The real issue we're getting caught up on is this whole "why" issue. I know it's difficult to fully see things from an opposing point of view, but there are some of us who do truly get caught up in the "why". When someone says to me "You can go through these 4 doors, but not this one", some people would just say "Ok", and others would say "Why?"; I'm the latter (I'd make a terrible soldier). Same thing applies here; when I see a rule that says "You can use this tool to measure, but not this one", I immediately think "Why?". I can't help it, it is what it is. You seem to be fine with just saying "Ok", and there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, sometimes I wish I could do the same. But this one has me puzzled; why ban the use of movement templates for premeasuring if it wasn't to prevent premeasurement for movement purposes? Is it literally just a timesaver, just to use one tool instead of many for premeasuring? That seems odd to me.

We can talk speculate about the "why" all day long. That can be entertaining. However, this thread is about what the rules say.

There are two interpretations of the rules that have been presented here. One interpretation takes the rules at face value. The other relies on reading between the lines and making connections that only exist if you assume developer intent.

I'm much more comfortable using and telling other people that they should be using the interpretation that comes from a straight readying of the rules.

1 minute ago, Casanunda said:

I guess that's my point here; rule 62.2 is far from cut and dry, unlike some in this thread are making it out to be.

'62.2 Players can only use movement templates while performing a move action. Movement templates cannot be used in any way to measure or predict the outcome of a movement at any other time during the game.'

Maybe I'm not getting why that isn't cut and dried in this situation.

"Players can only use movement templates while performing a move action"
If a player isn't touching, interacting with, or even looking at a movement template then this bit obviously doesn't apply.

"Movement templates cannot be used in any way to measure or predict the outcome of a movement at any other time during the game."
Again, if a movement template isn't being used, interacted with, or even looked at, this doesn't apply.

Honestly, 62.2 makes a much stronger argument against glancing at your movement templates and then looking back at the table to get an idea of where you'll end up than it does against using a range ruler to measure the distance from point A to point B.

I've been looking at this conversation as a pool that I don't know if it is cold or not...I guess it's cannonball time...

17 hours ago, Casanunda said:

Well, to be clear, I'm not implying the things you say, I'm inferring them. But whatever, that's just semantics. The real issue we're getting caught up on is this whole "why" issue. I know it's difficult to fully see things from an opposing point of view, but there are some of us who do truly get caught up in the "why". When someone says to me "You can go through these 4 doors, but not this one", some people would just say "Ok", and others would say "Why?"; I'm the latter (I'd make a terrible soldier). Same thing applies here; when I see a rule that says "You can use this tool to measure, but not this one", I immediately think "Why?". I can't help it, it is what it is. You seem to be fine with just saying "Ok", and there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, sometimes I wish I could do the same. But this one has me puzzled; why ban the use of movement templates for premeasuring if it wasn't to prevent premeasurement for movement purposes? Is it literally just a timesaver, just to use one tool instead of many for premeasuring? That seems odd to me.

Asking why is the best thing ever, in like 99% of situations, and I don't really think that this is one of the 1% times but since I am not one of the designers I cannot say exactly why but I can give my idea as to the answer, whether it helps or not is yet to be seen but I am not trying to start an argument here. I think the Range ruler is the only tool that can be used to premeasure because it is this games ruler, we aren't using a tape measure in this game and the distance markers are not a standard unit so they game us the range ruler for this. Movement templates are here for moving unit to point a to point b, these are not what you use to premeasuring because they still want there to be some guess work in figuring out where you would end up in a turn or wheel. This is like using a range finder that is just some lines and numbers etched on a lense in a scope, sure you can see out 100 yards in a straight line but it isn't going to accurately show you where you would end up on a turn, that is where the estimation comes in.

17 hours ago, WWHSD said:

"Players can only use movement templates while performing a move action"
If a player isn't touching, interacting with, or even looking at a movement template then this bit obviously doesn't apply.

"Movement templates cannot be used in any way to measure or predict the outcome of a movement at any other time during the game."
Again, if a movement template isn't being used, interacted with, or even looked at, this doesn't apply.

Honestly, 62.2 makes a much stronger argument against glancing at your movement templates and then looking back at the table to get an idea of where you'll end up than it does against using a range ruler to measure the distance from point A to point B.

What if you mark your range ruler with the length of the movement templates? Is that using them "in any way?" If a person glances at the movement templates while deciding on a maneuver, are they guilty of a rules violation? The statement "in any way" is up for interpretation. Perhaps you think I'm just being difficult, but the point is that regardless of the way the rule is written, it must be interpreted, and there are many different ways to do that. The only thing that does not change is the intent of the rule, which in my mind is to prevent premeasuring for movement purposes. For example, if my opponent uses the range ruler to measure distance between two units of reanimates, one mine and one his, when neither unit has ranged or special abilities, I'll probably ask him to stop, as it is violating the "spirit" of the rule.

24 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

The only thing that does not change is the intent of the rule, which in my mind is to prevent premeasuring for movement purposes. For example, if my opponent uses the range ruler to measure distance between two units of reanimates, one mine and one his, when neither unit has ranged or special abilities, I'll probably ask him to stop, as it is violating the "spirit" of the rule.

This is where I would have an issue. It appears you want to enforce a rule based on your interpretation of the spirit of the rule. If you tried to stop someone from using the range ruler, at any time, how would you explain the discrepancy of the rules very clearly stating you can use the range ruler at any time? The rule has no additional bullet points below to explain the only way you can use the range ruler, or situations in which you can or can't use the range ruler, yet you would clearly stop someone from doing what is allowed in the rules because of your interpretation of a rule that is not present. The premeasuring rules sections mentions nothing about prohibiting premeasuring to determine the distance between two units, or premeasuring ONLY ranged attacks, you can't stop someone from following the rules because you think there was an omission in the rules.

37 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

What if you mark your range ruler with the length of the movement templates? Is that using them "in any way?" If a person glances at the movement templates while deciding on a maneuver, are they guilty of a rules violation? The statement "in any way" is up for interpretation. Perhaps you think I'm just being difficult, but the point is that regardless of the way the rule is written, it must be interpreted, and there are many different ways to do that. The only thing that does not change is the intent of the rule, which in my mind is to prevent premeasuring for movement purposes. For example, if my opponent uses the range ruler to measure distance between two units of reanimates, one mine and one his, when neither unit has ranged or special abilities, I'll probably ask him to stop, as it is violating the "spirit" of the rule.

We aren't anywhere near the gray area here though. The example that's being discussed is someone using a range ruler to make a measurement. The only way that movement templates are even in play is that knowledge of the movement templates is being used. If using knowledge of the templates to predict the outcome of movement is against the rules then we have a game that is impossible to play since effective movement is kind of core to the game.

The only time that intent and "spirit" should matter is when the rules as written don't work in a given situation. That's clearly not the case here.

The problem is that your interpretation relies on both players agreeing on what the intent is. If you don't have that agreement you can't really play a game. If we were playing a game and you tried to stop me from measuring range from my spearmen to your reanimates because it violated the spirit of the rules, I'd probably tell you to knock of the rules lawyer crap and play the game by the rules in the book. If you insist that I can't measure we pull out the rule book and start arguing. That will be futile because it's apparent that we aren't really looking at the same rulebook. The version numbers are the same and all of the words and pictures match but your copy has some unwritten sections on intent and "spirit of the rules" that need to be followed. Someone is either going just give in to the other to get through the game or we'll pack up our stuff and just not play again. Either way, it was likely a poor experience for one or both of us.

Ok, Ok, I get it! I probably wouldn't do what I said anyways :). Although I WOULD be curious as to why my opponent was measuring the distance when clearly there's no reason to. Just to be clear, even if I DID ask a person to stop, it would probably just end up being a conversation about it, not a "You can't do that, I won't play with you if you do" kind of thing. If push came to shove, I'd back down; rule 62.1 is pretty darn clear the way it's written.

4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I'd probably tell you to knock of the rules lawyer crap and play the game by the rules in the book.

Heh, funny you should say this, since from my point of view I'm advocating an ANTI-rules lawyer perspective of the rules. I tend to think of rules lawyering as a very strict interpretation of written rules with no adherence to common sense, but perhaps you think of it differently. You clearly have more experience than I do with wargaming.

I don't want to drag this out any more, I'll just summarise my point; I find it odd that the premeasuring rules allow the use of one tool and not another, when clearly you can use one as a measuring stick for the other. I simply find it a curious design decision that led me to question why. Knowing the spirit of this PARTICULAR rule would be useful, in my mind, and would clear up a lot of questions.

Just a couple more things:

18 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

The problem is that your interpretation relies on both players agreeing on what the intent is.

True, but going with RAW forces us to agree on what the words mean, which isn't always as easy as it seems (it is in this case). Every form of communication is simply a social contract of some sort.

27 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

That will be futile because it's apparent that we aren't really looking at the same rulebook. The version numbers are the same and all of the words and pictures match but your copy has some unwritten sections on intent and "spirit of the rules" that need to be followed.

I think you've taken this argument a bit too far; in the vast majority of cases, the intent of the rule is clear, and the rules as written and rules as intended line up. I play with the same rules as everyone else. In fringe cases, I tend to side with rules as intended as opposed to rules as written, that's all.

41 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

Heh, funny you should say this, since from my point of view I'm advocating an ANTI-rules lawyer perspective of the rules. I tend to think of rules lawyering as a very strict interpretation of written rules with no adherence to common sense, but perhaps you think of it differently.

I can see that. I think that rules lawyering can go either way. When it involves strict adherence to the rule book instead of running rules through the filter of intent, it probably also includes some torture of the language or selective application of rules.

41 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

I find it odd that the premeasuring rules allow the use of one tool and not another, when clearly you can use one as a measuring stick for the other. I simply find it a curious design decision that led me to question why. Knowing the spirit of this PARTICULAR rule would be useful, in my mind, and would clear up a lot of questions.

I'll give you my take on what I believe the intent is, even though I don't think it carries much weight in how the rules should be applied. Allowing measurement of anything at anytime using only the range ruler levels the playing field between players a bit. It removes a handicap from players with a poor ability to judge distances while still not providing perfect information on where every move will put them. The guy with perfect spatial perception still has an edge, it just ceases to be as large.

In my experience playing X-Wing I've found that I'm crappy at judging distances. I'll not make a move for fear of going off the board but after I make the move I ended up going with it's obvious that I would have had 2 inches to spare with my first choice. Or I'll be certain that my move with clear a ship or an obstacle by a mile only to end up right on top of it. Contrast that with some of the people that I've played that can reliably put their finger on the board to point out the spot that their ship will end up after doing their maneuver and a post maneuver re-positioning action or accurately call out the range of an attack even when it's close enough that you need to take a second look when using the range ruler to measure.

13 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I'll give you my take on what I believe the intent is, even though I don't think it carries much weight in how the rules should be applied. Allowing measurement of anything at anytime using only the range ruler levels the playing field between players a bit. It removes a handicap from players with a poor ability to judge distances while still not providing perfect information on where every move will put them. The guy with perfect spatial perception still has an edge, it just ceases to be as large

I can see that. If that was the case (hypothetically), it would be interesting to have the rule be amended for competitive (not casual) tournaments, then. Not saying that should happen, but I bet a "no premeasuring" rule for competitive games would likely actually save a lot of headaches and arguments.

I genuinely don't think anyone who believes pre measuring in this game grants some unfair advantage has actually played the game very much.

Just throwing that out there.

It's a complete non issue once dice start rolling.

25 minutes ago, Casanunda said:

I can see that. If that was the case (hypothetically), it would be interesting to have the rule be amended for competitive (not casual) tournaments, then. Not saying that should happen, but I bet a "no premeasuring" rule for competitive games would likely actually save a lot of headaches and arguments.

I think you have a better game when players are able to make informed decisions. I'd rather win because you made a poor tactical decision than because you can't tell the difference between 6 and 8 inches. The game is more fun when players will risk taking their 3 wide formation of spearmen between two pieces of terrain that they just barely fit through instead of avoiding it because they aren't sure if they've got half and inch or wiggle room or the gap is a quarter of an inch too narrow.

As long as premeasuring isn't getting in the way of the game by slowing things down, I think it's beneficial to permit it. Limiting it to just using the range ruler speeds things up a bit because you don't have people checking every template constantly (because if I'm premeasuring a move with the actual movement templates, I'm going to use 3-5 different ones every time so I don't telegraph the move that I'm actually dialing in).

No one who looks at this thread for an answer to a question will ever read all of these posts. I know I haven't read even half these posts, so I'll do what ever I was doing before looking at this thread.

Just now, Ywingscum said:

No one who looks at this thread for an answer to a question will ever read all of these posts. I know I haven't read even half these posts, so I'll do what ever I was doing before looking at this thread.

And they shouldn't.

If you are just looking for answers in the rules subforum there is almost never a reason to read past the first few posts in any of the threads. You'll either find the answer you are looking for or it will be obvious that there's a debate/discussion/argument going on and it's safe to move on.

10 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

No one who looks at this thread for an answer to a question will ever read all of these posts. I know I haven't read even half these posts, so I'll do what ever I was doing before looking at this thread.

As is good, and proper.

We got through the crunchy stuff almost immediately, now we're down to the "Well I think"s, and they're boring/pointless.

If your opponent is so obviously telegraphing their moves with premeasuring, use it to your advantage and modify your strategy if you think they are planning something silly!