I think I know the answer, but I want to be 100% clear (no question).

When measuring range, does the dividing line between the ranges count for anything?

So, for example, I’m measuring from my ship to my opponents and the ruler measures smack dab between range one and two (on the line). Which range is it?

This question came from some Armada acrylics I acquired, which were cut just short of the line (excluding), so then I thought, but what about my X-Wing acrylics?

For the record, Armada’s rules reference (page 9) says, “The lines on the ruler that divide two adjacent bands always count as part of the band closest to the bottom of the ruler.”, but X-Wing has no clear definition (unless I missed it).

I know X-Wing explains the terms: At, Within and Beyond (page 16 rules reference), but it never talks about the dividing line itself (again, unless I missed it).

For that matter, it also doesn’t explain Within very well either (page 16 rules reference: “ Within : A ship is within a specified range if the entirety of its base falls inside that range.”) . For example, you’re using Tactician and measuring to see if you are “within” range two. Does range two include either line on either side of that range, or is it just the range part itself?

For either of the two examples I’ve made, if you define the range as including the line, then it will be “within” the desired range, but if the range is defined as before the line... we’ll i think you get the idea.

Could someone clear this up please?

I guess the fundamental thing to be aware of is that the ranges are increments of 100mm lengths, the other thing to remember is the cardboard range rulers in the core sets can vary depending on how the punch card machine was feeling that day.

What does this mean? Don’t use the cardboard range rulers unless you really have to.

What does that mean for your questions? Use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler if you can get them. For range 1 if you lay the ruler on the mat and can't push them between the ships its range 1. same for range 2. Determining R1 & R2 when it's to close to call is impossible with an R3 ruler.

Side note, while there is reference to the term "within range X" there are no cards currently that use that language (I think) and the only 2 times I could find the term used was in the rules for deployment, i.e. within R1 of your board edge and when determining if a ship has fled the battlefield.

I think you might be overthinking this one a little. There's no "official" ruling on the range marking lines themselves, so a little common sense needs to be utilised instead. The rules reference says " The range is the band of the range ruler that falls over the closest point of the second ship. " Which means if it's on the line, it's going to be the beginning of the next range band. That's the way I've always measured ranges for things for over thirty years of gaming, and I've never had an argument resulting from that.

Regarding Within , it's actually pretty clear. The base of the target ship must be entirely inside the required range band. If there's a portion in the next Range band or even on the line, then I would say it isn't entirely within that range band.

Incidentally, Tactician only requires part of the defender's ship to be in the Range 2 band. It's not "within" Range 2, it's "at" Range 2.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a line that's less than a millimetre wide here. Fly casual. If it's right on the line, it's the next range band.

I guess it depends on whether you rule that the line is in or out. With the Super Bowl in only a few days, we'll use a football analogy. For the end zone, the goal line starts at the edge between painted and unpainted turf... in this case, the line counts as part of the end zone itself. For the sidelines, though, touching the line is the equivalent of stepping out of bounds. The line counts as being off the field.

So to that end, you really need a ruling from your local TO, or come to a consensus with your opponent, before the game: Is the line part of the closer, or part of the farther, range bracket? (Usually, at my store, if there's a question between Range X or Y, we just roll a red die for it: Hit/Crit it's in, Blank/Focus it's out).

My question is, how often does this occur in order for it to be a problem?

18 hours ago, Parravon said:

My question is, how often does this occur in order for it to be a problem?

Yet foresight can show us a problem before we know it’s there.

Ignoring this won’t solve future problems.

39 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

Yet foresight can show us a problem before we know it’s there.

Ignoring this won’t solve future problems.

So... it's not actually a problem, yet you thought you'd make it one?

15 hours ago, Parravon said:

So... it's not actually a problem, yet you thought you'd make it one?

It's not an immediate problem, but he wants it resolved ahead of time so no time is wasted arguing during a game.

There's only going to be an argument if there's an actual problem. If it's right on the line, decide if it's in or out by dice roll or coin toss or something. Hey, presto! Problem solved, argument avoided, back to the game.

Die roll is a common method to resolve disputes in this game!

On 2018-02-02 at 6:27 PM, Parravon said:

There's only going to be an argument if there's an actual problem. If it's right on the line, decide if it's in or out by dice roll or coin toss or something. Hey, presto! Problem solved, argument avoided, back to the game.

So there shouldn’t be clearification in the rules, we don’t need an FAQ and we don’t need a TO. I think you’re over simplifying things and I would truly hate to play a game you would design. Yes a die roll or coin toss should get everyone past any issue, but it doesn’t mean there doesn’t need to be a clearification or a rule.

Im not sure what is up with these boards of late? Are you a troll? Do you look for ways to be argumentative or contrary?

On 2018-02-01 at 2:06 AM, emeraldbeacon said:

I guess it depends on whether you rule that the line is in or out. With the Super Bowl in only a few days, we'll use a football analogy. For the end zone, the goal line starts at the edge between painted and unpainted turf... in this case, the line counts as part of the end zone itself. For the sidelines, though, touching the line is the equivalent of stepping out of bounds. The line counts as being off the field.

So to that end, you really need a ruling from your local TO, or come to a consensus with your opponent, before the game: Is the line part of the closer, or part of the farther, range bracket? (Usually, at my store, if there's a question between Range X or Y, we just roll a red die for it: Hit/Crit it's in, Blank/Focus it's out).

But going by your analogy (I know nothing about football) there are rules for which lines are in or out. So why is there no rule in X-Wing? The creators of Armada had the wisdom to define the ranges, including the lines. I guess this is just another area where the X-Wing design team “dropped the ball” ;-).

2 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

So there shouldn’t be clearification in the rules, we don’t need an FAQ and we don’t need a TO. I think you’re over simplifying things and I would truly hate to play a game you would design. Yes a die roll or coin toss should get everyone past any issue, but it doesn’t mean there doesn’t need to be a clearification or a rule.

Im not sure what is up with these boards of late? Are you a troll? Do you look for ways to be argumentative or contrary?

No, I don't set out to be argumentative or contrary or a troll. But I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Does it really need a clarification or "official" ruling? I sincerely don't think it does.

And I am, in fact, a game designer and have designed many games covering various genre most of which utilise measuring with a ruler or tape measure. One of those games is currently played internationally. So I think my background allows me to bring a little experience, knowledge and gamer's logic to these forums when I post here. But in the 30+ years I have been gaming and designing, I have NEVER encountered an issue regarding ruler markings like the one you've mentioned here. There's some things that really don't need to be defined to the nth degree. Sometimes a degree of common sense has to be used.

On 2018-01-31 at 11:08 PM, Mace Windu said:

I guess the fundamental thing to be aware of is that the ranges are increments of 100mm lengths, the other thing to remember is the cardboard range rulers in the core sets can vary depending on how the punch card machine was feeling that day.

What does this mean? Don’t use the cardboard range rulers unless you really have to.

What does that mean for your questions? Use an acrylic range 1 or range 2 ruler if you can get them. For range 1 if you lay the ruler on the mat and can't push them between the ships its range 1. same for range 2. Determining R1 & R2 when it's to close to call is impossible with an R3 ruler.

Side note, while there is reference to the term "within range X" there are no cards currently that use that language (I think) and the only 2 times I could find the term used was in the rules for deployment, i.e. within R1 of your board edge and when determining if a ship has fled the battlefield.

That’s how this all came about, acrylic range rulers. I bought an Armada set that was short by a millimeter (the end line) and that got me thinking, ‘what about my X-Wing acrylics?’.

It just seems odd that there is no clear definition for range. Most of us have acrylic or in some cases cardboard rulers for each range category. Where were they cut? After the line? Before the line? On the line? X-Wing has been touted as a game of millimeters, so it seems odd that this was ignored.

‘For that matter, I’ve heard the 100mm quote before. Where did you get that? Was it in some post, FAQ, or rules update? Or did someone just measure their cardboard ruler? If that info was from Fantasy Flight, then they did lay out whether the line is part of each section. If someone just measured and everyone just jumped on the idea, it could be wrong and when FF finally gets around to making a rule, we could all find our acrylics are off and useless.

4 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

That’s how this all came about, acrylic range rulers. I bought an Armada set that was short by a millimeter (the end line) and that got me thinking, ‘what about my X-Wing acrylics?’.

This got me thinking... if you REALLY wanted a solid answer (outside of FFG designer information), you could take a series careful measurements of FFG-issued acrylic range rulers (all three sizes) should give us an "assumed" proper size for each range bracket. Measure those specific sizes against a typical range ruler, and you will hopefully know where the exact range increment is. Of course, you'd need a wide array of range rulers, multiples ruler sets from multiple events, to get a proper statistical look at the data, including identifying outliers (for example, maybe the Range 2 rulers from the 20XX Regionals series were consistently 1mm shorter than other Range 2 rulers)...

6 hours ago, Parravon said:

No, I don't set out to be argumentative or contrary or a troll. But I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Does it really need a clarification or "official" ruling? I sincerely don't think it does.

And I am, in fact, a game designer and have designed many games covering various genre most of which utilise measuring with a ruler or tape measure. One of those games is currently played internationally. So I think my background allows me to bring a little experience, knowledge and gamer's logic to these forums when I post here. But in the 30+ years I have been gaming and designing, I have NEVER encountered an issue regarding ruler markings like the one you've mentioned here. There's some things that really don't need to be defined to the nth degree. Sometimes a degree of common sense has to be used.

If it didn’t need a rule, or could be guessed at by common sense, then you should be able to answer without uncertainty, but you didn’t. I have more than 30 years experience playing games, and I can tell you, one line of clearification can make a game so much better. When it comes to competition many people seem to lose their common sense and will argue the smallest detail, more so when there is something to win.

2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

This got me thinking... if you REALLY wanted a solid answer (outside of FFG designer information), you could take a series careful measurements of FFG-issued acrylic range rulers (all three sizes) should give us an "assumed" proper size for each range bracket. Measure those specific sizes against a typical range ruler, and you will hopefully know where the exact range increment is. Of course, you'd need a wide array of range rulers, multiples ruler sets from multiple events, to get a proper statistical look at the data, including identifying outliers (for example, maybe the Range 2 rulers from the 20XX Regionals series were consistently 1mm shorter than other Range 2 rulers)...

? I guess that’s about as likely as getting a rules clearification from Fantasy Flight.

I always defer to my opponents advantage when I'm measuring my ships range, and expect them to defer to my advantage when measuring from their ships to determine range. Exceptions to something as simple as this sort of common courtesy guarantee that would be the last game I ever play against you. If you're going to nitpick this sort of superficial garbage, I can't imagine the tantrum you'd throw when something important was actually called into question. Congratulations on your nothingburger.

14 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

I always defer to my opponents advantage when I'm measuring my ships range, and expect them to defer to my advantage when measuring from their ships to determine range. Exceptions to something as simple as this sort of common courtesy guarantee that would be the last game I ever play against you. If you're going to nitpick this sort of superficial garbage, I can't imagine the tantrum you'd throw when something important was actually called into question. Congratulations on your nothingburger.

let's inspire em to question the usage off the diagonal off the range ruler...; i think that is actually a fraction longer then range 3

8 hours ago, JasonCole said:

I always defer to my opponents advantage when I'm measuring my ships range, and expect them to defer to my advantage when measuring from their ships to determine range. Exceptions to something as simple as this sort of common courtesy guarantee that would be the last game I ever play against you. If you're going to nitpick this sort of superficial garbage, I can't imagine the tantrum you'd throw when something important was actually called into question. Congratulations on your nothingburger.

This is what I’m talking about. Was this called for? Did you get something out of this? Is there any way you could have rephrased that without being ignorant?

I was only asking a question and this tirade was uncalled for. These forums are really sliding if this is how we treat each other now. We need to hold each other to a higher standard.

I don't think you know what the word "ignorant" means. You should consider using "callous", "hostile", or "unnecessary", but nothing about my statement is ignorant. You brought a "rules question" to the forum that isn't a "rules" issue, it's a "sportsmanship" issue, and since it's your question, and it hasn't been an issue with ***ANYONE*** in the community in the last 4+ years of gameplay and additional game development before that, and by your own admission hasn't been an issue with you until you decided to try and make one out of it, then the problem isn't with the rest of the community, it isn't with the components, and it isn't with the rules.

The rest of the community figured out a long time ago that they could cut an extra range ruler into a 1 range and a 2 range stick and use that, and it was so successful that there's even an entire aftermarket industry that supplies custom templates to do just that. Your demands that someone recognize a "problem" that isn't actually a problem, and your persistence in pushing the issue once multiple people have clearly stated that this isn't a problem simply illustrate that you're trying to rabblerouse, and quite frankly, no one cares. This is all I have to say on the subject. Good day sir.

57 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

I don't think you know what the word "ignorant" means. You should consider using "callous", "hostile", or "unnecessary", but nothing about my statement is ignorant. You brought a "rules question" to the forum that isn't a "rules" issue, it's a "sportsmanship" issue, and since it's your question, and it hasn't been an issue with ***ANYONE*** in the community in the last 4+ years of gameplay and additional game development before that, and by your own admission hasn't been an issue with you until you decided to try and make one out of it, then the problem isn't with the rest of the community, it isn't with the components, and it isn't with the rules.

The rest of the community figured out a long time ago that they could cut an extra range ruler into a 1 range and a 2 range stick and use that, and it was so successful that there's even an entire aftermarket industry that supplies custom templates to do just that. Your demands that someone recognize a "problem" that isn't actually a problem, and your persistence in pushing the issue once multiple people have clearly stated that this isn't a problem simply illustrate that you're trying to rabblerouse, and quite frankly, no one cares. This is all I have to say on the subject. Good day sir.

Ignorant also means discourteous or rude, which you have been in spades. I will not waste a second longer on you. Welcome to the ignore list.

I think that because you asked for people's opinions, and they have given you their honest opinion, hasn't your question been answered? this is so much of an edge case, (with templates being much larger than the line on the range ruler) that its safe to say that a divided range ruler, dice roll, or simple courtesy would all be viable solutions. I think this post doesn't need an errata purely because the entire point of an FAQ is to address something frequently asked, and as I said about this being an edge case, we shouldn't need to worry. If you need an answer, I suggest a divided range ruler, and if you don't have one, defer to your opponent. As players, we have to accept what FFG gives us as parts, purely because how can we challenge it. Maybe all range rulers that are 301 mm long are right and everyone with a 300 mm ruler is too short, the issue is we just don't know.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter exactly how long they are, as long as *they're the same length for both players*.

The gross distances you can learn, but the fine points will be dependent on the specific templates concerned.

Which is why there's a rule that says you can ask to share in tournaments, so the playing field is level.

3 hours ago, CMDR Ytterium said:

I think that because you asked for people's opinions, and they have given you their honest opinion, hasn't your question been answered? this is so much of an edge case, (with templates being much larger than the line on the range ruler) that its safe to say that a divided range ruler, dice roll, or simple courtesy would all be viable solutions. I think this post doesn't need an errata purely because the entire point of an FAQ is to address something frequently asked, and as I said about this being an edge case, we shouldn't need to worry. If you need an answer, I suggest a divided range ruler, and if you don't have one, defer to your opponent. As players, we have to accept what FFG gives us as parts, purely because how can we challenge it. Maybe all range rulers that are 301 mm long are right and everyone with a 300 mm ruler is too short, the issue is we just don't know.

The issue is, it's never been an issue.