Has anybody heard anything about an email from Alex changing range measurement to plastic-to-plastic? Had a TO ruling it that way at a small tourney today, who acknowledged that it was not RAW but countered that there had been a dev email clarifying it to be plastic to plastic.

While I'm like 97% sure I haven't seen such a thing posted anywhere, it does happen on occasion that I'm wrong.

Note that this is not a thread to bash the TO or anything, so if you were there or know who it was, you can feel free to go complain somewhere else. I disagree with the ruling, but he was clear and above board about it, and as TO he has the final say, so no harm done as far as I'm concerned. I just want to make sure I'm playing it right.

Crap, meant to put a question mark in that title, and I'm on mobile so I can't fix it. Oh well, I guess it will just stay a clickbait title til i get home. #dealwithit

Fixed. I hope you all panicked in confusion when you saw this thread title.

Have I heard of this?

Absolutely Not.

Its possible that such a thing is out in the wild, that it was an individual answer to someone...

But such an answer has not been shared with the community if that is the case, because it would be ground shattering in its implications and we would remember it.

----

To 100% Clarify for the Masses, the way RAW is:

Attacks are measured Cardboard to Cardboard. This isbecause they are measured from Hull Zone to Hull Zone , and Hull Zones are only printed on Cardboard.

But Non-Attack Measurements , such as, "Am I within Distance 1-5 for Home One", or "Am I in Phylom Tractor Beam range", that is Component to Component (as Hull Zones are not required), which makes the measurement Plastic to Plastic

Thanks Dras. Agreed on all points. Asked him to forward me the email our a link to it. Response pending.

And what is the clarification on “plastic to plastic?” Someone reading that, as is, might interpret it to include the plastic shield dial groves

2 hours ago, Parkdaddy said:

And what is the clarification on “plastic to plastic?” Someone reading that, as is, might interpret it to include the plastic shield dial groves

One moment. PDF on phone is messed up:

• When measuring non-attack range or distance between two components, measure from the closest point of the first component to the closest point of the second component.

• A ship or squadron is always at close range and distance 1 of itself.

• When measuring arc, range, or distance, ignore squadrons’ activation sliders and ships’ shield dials and the plastic portions of the base that frame the shield dial.

2 hours ago, Parkdaddy said:

And what is the clarification on “plastic to plastic?” Someone reading that, as is, might interpret it to include the plastic shield dial groves

Interestingly, a few of the inconsistencies that this ruling raises came up throughout the tournament after he made the ruling. Off the top of my head, that one came up, as did the question of where exactly the arc lines end for the purpose of measuring range.

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Interestingly, a few of the inconsistencies that this ruling raises came up throughout the tournament after he made the ruling. Off the top of my head, that one came up, as did the question of where exactly the arc lines end for the purpose of measuring range.

Which is probably why the cardboard rule is there in the first place.

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Which is probably why the cardboard rule is there in the first place.

Agreed.

In my game it came up when measuring range on a shot like this (from the ISD to the MC30), where adding the plastic not only actually adds a fairly substantial amount to the ISD's threat range, but also introduces quite a bit of room for error as to where exactly to measure the range from, since you have to manually extend the angle out from the token:

Illustrating how much extra range the ISD gets on that range measurement by extending the arc line forward (below in red ), which is much more than just the width of the plastic ( blue ) as you might naively expect:

Anyway, awaiting a response from said TO to my request for the supposed email. I'm convinced that he's misremembered an email addressing distance measurement for Phylons or something, but hey--maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody at FFG did in fact send out an email clarification to him personally without thinking the answer through first. It's happened before.

Side rails are about 2 mm, so going at 45 degrees its almost 3 mm.

And that just for the shooting ship.

Also, especially for small ships, there is sometimes a very small gap between the rail and the actual cardboard (cutting tolerance).

To the surprise of no one here, he was not able to find the referenced email, and has changed his position.

Fake news. Nothing to see here.

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

To the surprise of no one here, he was not able to find the referenced email, and has changed his position.

Fake news. Nothing to see here.

Fake news are the best news. They're great.

isn't it alternative Facts??