What about when you check for target lock you have to take it, and if you are at of range you waste that action? Would benefit the player who shoots last, as it should, would also curb the "just checking" crowd... i know this has been touched on before but only in the abuse of use context...

Nah, it's fine as-is. Right now, you do have to take it when you check for target lock and the opponent is in range.

Quote

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a different action.

Considering if you're in range you need to take the lock, I don't see a problem with how it is.

I really don't see a whole lot of "just checking" beyond players very new to the game, and I let that happen because right now the bigger issue is they learn the game mechanics rather than being able to eyeball it without aids. I graduate them off it but it's not a big deal when starting them.

The 'just checking' thing is a: entirely legal and b: not an issue. It has a risk (you ARE in range and you get a lock you didn't actually want for an action you didn't want to spend) and it gives your opponent information as well.

Even if it were a problem, there are WAY higher priorities.

5 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Considering if you're in range you need to take the lock, I don't see a problem with how it is.

I really don't see a whole lot of "just checking" beyond players very new to the game, and I let that happen because right now the bigger issue is they learn the game mechanics rather than being able to eyeball it without aids. I graduate them off it but it's not a big deal when starting them.

This actually surprises me, using target locks to inform decisions is a good idea regardless of experience level.

That said, it's 2 sided information and doesn't seem particularly problematic to me so I don't know why they'd change it.

Although it costs a couple points a Seismic Torpedo can be a less risky way to "ping" distances even if it isn't directly ship to ship. It's got a smaller range and legal targets need to be in arc as well.

11 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

I really don't see a whole lot of "just checking" beyond players very new to the game

That's ... interesting. I don't see it from new players, except those who have been specifically taught how cool it is to abuse the rules doing it. Most new players I see are noticeably taken aback that a rule can be so easily -- and acceptably -- abused.

The really funny thing about the "it's perfectly legal and okay to do" contingent is that they're largely the exact same people who were against any game-state measurement outside the combat phase. (Yes, for those of you that are newer to the game: X-Wing used to have much freer rules regarding what and when you could measure.)

It was terrible , according to them, to be able to measure freely within the rules, but it's absolutely fine to be able to measure as a loophole. What's the difference? Well, a cynical person might point out that measuring freely was simply a basic part of the rules, and so it was open even to new and casual players, whereas pretending to be checking for a target lock in order to measure requires mad skeelz and experience , yo . A cynical person might point that out.

... So I'm pointing it out.

12 hours ago, Swedge said:

What about when you check for target lock you have to take it, and if you are at of range you waste that action? Would benefit the player who shoots last, as it should, would also curb the "just checking" crowd... i know this has been touched on before but only in the abuse of use context...

Oh, if we're opening the door to potentially wasted actions, how about if you declare a boost/barrel roll that you can't legally complete, you're SOL!

Carnor becomes more valuable now, too!

But the real winner in all of this is Captain Kagi, who, when you acquire a target lock, forces you to check to see if he is in range to be locked. Whenever he is out of range, you have measured for a target lock that could not be acquired and can't select a different target!

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

...
The really funny thing about the "it's perfectly legal and okay to do" contingent is that they're largely the exact same people who were against any game-state measurement outside the combat phase. (Yes, for those of you that are newer to the game: X-Wing used to have much freer rules regarding what and when you could measure.)

It was terrible , according to them, to be able to measure freely within the rules, but it's absolutely fine to be able to measure as a loophole. What's the difference? Well, a cynical person might point out that measuring freely was simply a basic part of the rules, and so it was open even to new and casual players, whereas pretending to be checking for a target lock in order to measure requires mad skeelz and experience , yo . A cynical person might point that out.

... So I'm pointing it out.

I'm not sure about that.

I actually think the YOU CAN'T MEASURE, or do ANYTHING that could be considered measuring by anyone, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY TOLD TO is far too harsh. Position and distance is completely open information and while I may not approve of the "let's test every possible outcome then decide what to do" idea I do think that allowing a little "pre-measuring" is actually a good idea. It's when you run up against those who seem to think that looking at the board funny may be measuring that I fully get behind ANY and ALL "legal" measuring times. Is something within R1? Let me put the end of my ruler against my ship and see; oh, I guess it's not and that I happen to learn that X is at R3 beyond that just accidental.

27 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That's ... interesting. I don't see it from new players, except those who have been specifically taught how cool it is to abuse the rules doing it. Most new players I see are noticeably taken aback that a rule can be so easily -- and acceptably -- abused.

The really funny thing about the "it's perfectly legal and okay to do" contingent is that they're largely the exact same people who were against any game-state measurement outside the combat phase. (Yes, for those of you that are newer to the game: X-Wing used to have much freer rules regarding what and when you could measure.)

It was terrible , according to them, to be able to measure freely within the rules, but it's absolutely fine to be able to measure as a loophole. What's the difference? Well, a cynical person might point out that measuring freely was simply a basic part of the rules, and so it was open even to new and casual players, whereas pretending to be checking for a target lock in order to measure requires mad skeelz and experience , yo . A cynical person might point that out.

... So I'm pointing it out.

I think the no pre-measuring ever crowd that you reference do it because it's legal, and because it's funny. Whenever I do it, I'll say something like, "legalized cheating/pre-measuring" or "desperation check".

I myself would prefer the rules to be as the OP suggested. If you fail a TL or boost or other action, you should just miss out.

But if using TL's to pre-measure in certain semi-niche circumstances is legal, then I'm going to do it. We tried to argue that it should be changed, but nothing was done about it. Lawful evil, stop me bro.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That's ... interesting. I don't see it from new players, except those who have been specifically taught how cool it is to abuse the rules doing it. Most new players I see are noticeably taken aback that a rule can be so easily -- and acceptably -- abused.

Most new players don't know it's against the rules to measure things unless you inform them of it. I also let brand new players pre measure with maneuver templates while planning their dial just so they can learn where things end up. After a game or two of it, I put them back onto "now you are expected to be able to mentally visualize what you think it will do".

I know it's legal to do, but sometimes it really comes off bad.

I had a game on vassal a long time ago. The guy was flying dash and some other pilot. His Dash kept doing target locks from WAY across the board just to get an idea of the range of things. It really felt like cheating as there was ZERO chance of him being in range to actually take one. But because of dash's mobility it gave him a lot of advantage of where to barrel and/or boost. Because it WAS on vassal, it probably was borderline cheating as most people use the Target Lock function so you get a 360 view of where everything is in relation to you on the board which you wouldn't do in a live game.

Go back to the Grim Dark you 40K rejects!

I will whip out my template to measure for a TL if I think I'm in range. I'll also whip it out when its time to shoot to see who's in range and in arc.

1 hour ago, markcsoul said:

I know it's legal to do, but sometimes it really comes off bad.

I had a game on vassal a long time ago. The guy was flying dash and some other pilot. His Dash kept doing target locks from WAY across the board just to get an idea of the range of things. It really felt like cheating as there was ZERO chance of him being in range to actually take one. But because of dash's mobility it gave him a lot of advantage of where to barrel and/or boost. Because it WAS on vassal, it probably was borderline cheating as most people use the Target Lock function so you get a 360 view of where everything is in relation to you on the board which you wouldn't do in a live game.

This ^^^^

It really is abusing the loophole in the rules and clearly using it to check range and see if a boost or barrel roll will have you getting shot or if they can flank enough to shoot. The worst I have seen is checking for lock behind another ship in front so they can check the range on the other ship in front without actually getting a lock on the ship at the back and still getting to do their action with information gleaned from super shady manipulation of the rules.

I would like to see FFG tweak the Target lock rule where if you can't reach the first ship you try to target you then have to keep checking all other opponents ships in your preferred order and if you find one in range you have to lock it. Or just lose your action if you miss the range, that would please me just fine as well.

Maybe a mod to curb excessive abuse:

Homing beacon

Cost 0

Modification

If an opponent attempts a target lock but is out of range you may have that ship skip its action this turn and acquire a lock on this ship.

No restrictions so it can be put on any ship in your whole squad with a free mod slot.

Kind of like a Kagi effect you can use at your own discretion from anywhere against anyone using this rules loophole

Pre-measuring and Vassal; the kinds of measuring you could easily do from a remote computer screen should cause the anti-measuring crowd to all blow up.

9 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Pre-measuring and Vassal; the kinds of measuring you could easily do from a remote computer screen should cause the anti-measuring crowd to all blow up.

This is literally one of the first things my not so computer inclined friends asked when seeing Vassal first time: how do you know the other guy doesn't have some pieces of paper/rulers to measure on his monitor?

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

I'll also whip it out when its time to shoot

Now, now Blod, no need to be whipping anything out; there are women and children present.

17 hours ago, Swedge said:

What about when you check for target lock you have to take it, and if you are at of range you waste that action? Would benefit the player who shoots last, as it should, would also curb the "just checking" crowd... i know this has been touched on before but only in the abuse of use context...

I played in a recent Store Champs where my opponents ship was close to range 1. Said he was checking for target lock with a ship equipped with Long range Scanners. yes I was annoyed as it was plainly inside the limitations for LRS, but by the rules, he wasn't doing anything wrong.

In other threads here I have posted that you follow the rules, for example the guy that made a massive mistake with his dial and flew his ship off the table in round 1, sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose some.

5 hours ago, markcsoul said:

I know it's legal to do, but sometimes it really comes off bad.

I had a game on vassal a long time ago. The guy was flying dash and some other pilot. His Dash kept doing target locks from WAY across the board just to get an idea of the range of things. It really felt like cheating as there was ZERO chance of him being in range to actually take one. But because of dash's mobility it gave him a lot of advantage of where to barrel and/or boost. Because it WAS on vassal, it probably was borderline cheating as most people use the Target Lock function so you get a 360 view of where everything is in relation to you on the board which you wouldn't do in a live game.

I do wish Vassal had a better range-measuring tool. I think Muon said they were working on it (I assume it would be something where you highlight two ships and it'll tell you how far apart they are closest to closest and in arc). Using the range-from-ship function IS, technically, cheating, but it's also the only accurate way to measure range on Vassal at the moment.

It's not a loophole. If FFG didn't want it to work, *they could make it not work*. It's a trivial thing to amend: you make it so the Target Lock action costs you your action regardless of whether you actually achieve the lock. It would take a single, tiny erratum, and the people who currently use it this way would no longer use it this way because the cost would be too high.

The problem is that "checking" is subjective. Some people are slower than others right? There's a few players I know that "check" a little longer than others. They are clearly measuring for their next move, which is not legal. However, since it's not illegal to check for a target lock, they're not breaking any rules. One guy has been called on many time times by top players, but really since he's not breaking a rule, he gets away with it.

There's a really simple solution to this that's seen increased use in minis games for years now.

Allow use of the range ruler to measure anything at any time for any reason, and any measurement made is open information to both players.

That way there's no abuse, no discussion over whether something is unfair or not, just a knowledge of what range you are to things. I'm not saying you put manoeuvre templates down and check with those, but I think the range falls within the realms of "fair enough".

As with other games it boils down to "Is this a game about weaponised geometry?". If I can attempt two "obviously out of range" target locks then I have a good shot at calculating most distances in that area of the board...why not cut out the calculation time and make the learning process easier by allowing free measurement with the range ruler?

57 minutes ago, MrChom said:

There's a really simple solution to this that's seen increased use in minis games for years now.

Allow use of the range ruler to measure anything at any time for any reason, and any measurement made is open information to both players.

That way there's no abuse, no discussion over whether something is unfair or not, just a knowledge of what range you are to things. I'm not saying you put manoeuvre templates down and check with those, but I think the range falls within the realms of "fair enough".

As with other games it boils down to "Is this a game about weaponised geometry?". If I can attempt two "obviously out of range" target locks then I have a good shot at calculating most distances in that area of the board...why not cut out the calculation time and make the learning process easier by allowing free measurement with the range ruler?

That's something that some here seem like they would never accept especially when they can read the rules otherwise.

The only real issue I see with that is using it to possibly stall but then how is that any different than spending a lot of time stressing about if I should do/attempt something because I'm "geometrically challenged" and thus spending a lot of time just staring at the board for something waiting for some sign to appear.

1 hour ago, MrChom said:

There's a really simple solution to this that's seen increased use in minis games for years now.

Allow use of the range ruler to measure anything at any time for any reason, and any measurement made is open information to both players.

Yes. X-Wing has actually gone in the opposite direction, primarily through influx of "competitive" players. As I observed in an earlier post, often the same competitive players who see no issues whatsoever in abusing the rule allowing checking for TL.

In the past year that I've been playing Kanan/Biggs, I've come across 3 opponents who have "measured for target lock" when they were clearly out, but do so to gleam additional information. It most frequently happens during the initial engagement - they will measure to Biggs (who is behind Kanan) to get a read on what range Kanan is and whether to BR/boost/etc, using the information on the obviously failed TL onto Biggs to gain information regarding Kanan. The most obvious opponent left the ruler out for about 10 seconds as he decided his move. I called the judge over on him when he did it a second time (after I warned him the first time, and he shrugged it off as "measuring for a lock with unsteady hands").

In those situations, it is 100% cheating - under the unsportsmanlike conduct section. You know you're not allowed to check what range band people are at prior to deciding your action, and yet you're finding a loop hole to do it anyways. That is unsportsmanlike.

32 minutes ago, Khyros said:

In those situations, it is 100% cheating - under the unsportsmanlike conduct section. You know you're not allowed to check what range band people are at prior to deciding your action, and yet you're finding a loop hole to do it anyways. That is unsportsmanlike.

Exactly. More specifically, it is "abuse of rules."

But even the developers forget, or choose not to acknowledge, that the "abuse of rules" clause exists. (Have you ever , even once, heard of it being enforced?) So the average Lawful Evil player certainly isn't going to accept that it applies.