"Players cannot measure distance and spacing with physical objects during setup except when using range rulers and maneuver templates wholly within Range 1 of that player’s edge."

The English Language supplies the mechanism to take a word out of a sentence and replace it with its defined meaning. In a lot of cases using the word itself, rather than its whole meaning, is often found to be more efficient and is generally understood by most readers. Though, when understanding is not clear or the meaning of a word is not fully known or understood by all parties, it may be more appropriate to replace the word with its defined meaning - as in the example troll-food-sentence above. This example demonstrates this concept by replacing the word "within" in the original sentence and inserting its defined meaning "wholly within."

--

We are now at that point where the line between "I'm playing devil's advocate" and "I'm just a rules forum troll" has been crossed and, to @flooze 's point, hilariously so.

30 minutes ago, flooze said:

Hilarious

Yeah. These are the moments when I'm glad I only play in the basement.

11 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah. These are the moments when I'm glad I only play in the basement.

This makes me sad and is why I get over-the-top frustrated with rules forum trolls, they provide a negative experience for players that might otherwise show up to local events or game stores. There are people here with honest questions, valid needs for clarifications and those that will troll the topic into the ground just to argue against the correct answers that have been provided for their own jollies ruins the experience for everyone.

I work hard to foster a "Fly Casual" style of competitive play with our local group as the area TO. We play by the RAW and, when clarification is not provided by the FAQ, we go with a RAI override from a New England regional based "FAQ" that is contributed to by TOs across the New England states (to avoid one-sided and subjective opinion based rulings). However, this is a game and we are here to play a game. We're not here to hold a trial and carry out extensive litigation. It's okay to be wrong, it's okay to miss a clause in the rules or FAQ, it is absolutely not okay to arbitrarily argue against the official FFG rules documents for the sole purpose of confusing others and reassuring your own personal need to be right.

@Darth Meanie , if you're ever in southern Maine I hope you look us up and attend any events we have running. You will have fun, you will have a good time, and I assure you rules lawyers wont ruin the event for anyone but themselves. (Plus we have pretty neat local custom prize support!)

4 hours ago, Eisai said:

And if that ruler extends beyond R1, unless you're setting up ships with your eyes closed, you'll now know exactly where R3 from your edge is, and will have thus measured distance beyond R1 of your edge.

Correct, you will have gained incidental knowledge, no different then attempting to target lock a ship outside your range at the same vector of another ship, laying the ruler out to show that and therefor measuring to the other ship. However regardless the defined intent (in this example) was to measure to the far ship for attempt at target lock and therefor allowed. Otherwise by your ruling, if another ship lies in the same vector you would NOT be able to measure to anything beyond it, because laying the ruler to measure those farther ships would provide measurement to the near one.

So once again: RAW, one can not measure the distance of an object beyond range 1, but nothing forbids laying the ruler out completely despite the intent of the rule, as long as doing so is providing measuring within range 1.

1 hour ago, SkullNBones said:

Correct, you will have gained incidental knowledge, no different then attempting to target lock a ship outside your range at the same vector of another ship, laying the ruler out to show that and therefor measuring to the other ship. However regardless the defined intent (in this example) was to measure to the far ship for attempt at target lock and therefor allowed. Otherwise by your ruling, if another ship lies in the same vector you would NOT be able to measure to anything beyond it, because laying the ruler to measure those farther ships would provide measurement to the near one.

So once again: RAW, one can not measure the distance of an object beyond range 1, but nothing forbids laying the ruler out completely despite the intent of the rule, as long as doing so is providing measuring within range 1.

So you are placing a RULER (by definition an object solely for the purpose of measuring) beyond a point where you are not allowed to MEASURE anything at that time.

Incidental or not you are measuring, and knowingly doing so, and as such you are actually cheating if you insist on continuing to do so to a protesting opponent.

Any TO worth their salt knows this and shouldn’t tolerate that kind of attempted rules lawyering.

There really is no point arguing about this one, because SkullNBones will just agree then disagree repeatedly until everyone else gets pissed off.

There's only two ways to measure anything within Range 1 of the edge of the play area and no further into the play area, and that's either with two thirds of the standard range ruler hanging off the play area, or with a short Range 1 ruler.

Laying the whole ruler down in the play area is measuring beyond range 1, and therefore not allowed. It's not RAI versus RAW, it's simply the way it works.

7 hours ago, Parravon said:

There really is no point arguing about this one, because SkullNBones will just agree then disagree repeatedly until everyone else gets pissed off.

There's only two ways to measure anything within Range 1 of the edge of the play area and no further into the play area, and that's either with two thirds of the standard range ruler hanging off the play area, or with a short Range 1 ruler.

Laying the whole ruler down in the play area is measuring beyond range 1, and therefore not allowed. It's not RAI versus RAW, it's simply the way it works.

No I am not trying to piss anyone off. However, what I am trying to point out is that if someone wanted to argue to point (as I am I suppose), the RAW do not forbid placing an object beyond range one, only measuring with it. And yes, I understand that using a range ruler to do so CAN (not always as there could be nothing NEAR it), provide a measure to an object (something the rules forbid you to do), however as I already state, there may be no objects near it (say all placed within range 1 of each other tucked into the opposite corner of the map).

Nowhere in the RAW is there language that states "no object may be placed beyond range 1 of the players edge". IF that language existed I would not be arguing the point. HOWEVER it does not. Until it does, forbidding an object from being placed beyond range 1 during set up is INTENT.

Do I personally play that way, nope, I use a shortened size "range 1" ruler to set up. That being said, grab a look at the streams of most of the regionals so far this year from around the world and you are going to see a lot of range rulers being placed outside range 1 (typically they are being placed horizontally at the top of a range 1 ruler to form a right angel), however ALL of these matches (if we are to go by INTENT) must be voided, as they placed a range ruler OUTSIDE range 1 of the players edge.

now does it make that much of a difference...no, so relax. However, @Parravon , you are correct in that I will not stop pointing out the RAW vs RAI when I am correct (be it pointless or not).

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

No I am not trying to piss anyone off. However, what I am trying to point out is that if someone wanted to argue to point (as I am I suppose), the RAW do not forbid placing an object beyond range one, only measuring with it.

I can try to argue that water is not wet, but I'd be wrong.

The rules aren't unclear here. They explicitly prohibit placing objects beyond range 1, and you've quoted the rules passage itself, but pretended not to understand the plain language. You're actively trying to confuse players. Just stop.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Nowhere in the RAW is there language that states "no object may be placed beyond range 1 of the players edge".

Except, yes there is, exacly like your argument about HLC, you were ignoring rule just to support your point.

We have already told you, the word WITHIN have a meaning in this game. It means wolly within, if your range ruler is outside range one of the player edge, you are breaking the rule. The rule is black on white, it must be wolly within it. This is not the measurement that must happen wolly within, this the object used to measure that must fit inside it.

Earned myself a 2 day post ban for activity in this thread.

The very definition of unreasonable is "one who cannot be reasoned with".

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:22 AM, muribundi said:

Except, yes there is, exacly like your argument about HLC, you were ignoring rule just to support your point.

We have already told you, the word WITHIN have a meaning in this game. It means wolly within, if your range ruler is outside range one of the player edge, you are breaking the rule. The rule is black on white, it must be wolly within it. This is not the measurement that must happen wolly within, this the object used to measure that must fit inside it.

@muribundi yet, you ignore the fact that the text says "...may not measure...", placing an object that extends beyond range 1 during set up is not inherently measuring anything (even if the object used is a range ruler). The text does not say you may not place an object beyond range 1.

However, given the continued argument, what are your opinions on the couple hundred matches (or so) including regional championship final matches and system opens, that have been placed with a range ruler being placed to form a right angel (and thus being outside the play area), should these matches then all be considered void since an object (in fact a range ruler) has been placed outside of range 1 during setup? OR were those matches legal (as I have stated), since there is no text that literally prohibits it?

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:32 PM, JasonCole said:

Earned myself a 2 day post ban for activity in this thread.

The very definition of unreasonable is "one who cannot be reasoned with".

As for me, I am very reasonable. And I have even stated multiple times, I understand the RAI that is being argued. However I remain adamant that not literal wordage bans placing an object beyond range 1, and given the practical application that has been demonstrated in higher level play, that argument is supported.

8 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

However, given the continued argument, what are your opinions on the couple hundred matches (or so) including regional championship final matches and system opens, that have been placed with a range ruler being placed to form a right angel (and thus being outside the play area), should these matches then all be considered void since an object (in fact a range ruler) has been placed outside of range 1 during setup? OR were those matches legal (as I have stated), since there is no text that literally prohibits it?

You're a terrible rules lawyer. You're confusing step 5 which is obstacle placement with step 6 of setup, which is ship deployment. Step 5 allows rulers to be used (though doesn't specifically require it). Step 6 is when ships are deployed and is the portion where no measurements may extend beyond range 1 of the setup area. Setup is a 7 stage event that has rules that change for each respective step as determined by the board state and the needs of the step.

It's easy to say "It doesn't say that" when at no point do you provide text of any kind backing up your claim. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "fake news". You've been refuted countless times. Setup phase rules are pasted below. If you want to make up house rules for whoever you can find to play with you, then fine, go nuts. But stop spreading misinformation in the rules forum.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/270749-setup-question/

10 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

@muribundi yet, you ignore the fact that the text says "...may not measure...", placing an object that extends beyond range 1 during set up is not inherently measuring anything (even if the object used is a range ruler). The text does not say you may not place an object beyond range 1.

Trolling confirmed.

2 hours ago, JasonCole said:

You're a terrible rules lawyer. You're confusing step 5 which is obstacle placement with step 6 of setup, which is ship deployment. Step 5 allows rulers to be used (though doesn't specifically require it). Step 6 is when ships are deployed and is the portion where no measurements may extend beyond range 1 of the setup area. Setup is a 7 stage event that has rules that change for each respective step as determined by the board state and the needs of the step.

It's easy to say "It doesn't say that" when at no point do you provide text of any kind backing up your claim. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "fake news". You've been refuted countless times. Setup phase rules are pasted below. If you want to make up house rules for whoever you can find to play with you, then fine, go nuts. But stop spreading misinformation in the rules forum.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/270749-setup-question/

I am not confusing anything steps. Read my OP (where I quoted the text).

The steps are all clearly laid out and the RAW are clear. There is no point in the RAW that states that a player can not place an object on the table when setting up his ships that extends beyond range 1 of his edge. Only that he can not measure beyond range 1. AND if you are citing my example of current RIU, I am referring to Step 6 again (where ships are being deployed), where it appears to be common practice to place a shortened range 1 ruler on the board and then place another range ruler at the top of the shortened one, forming a right angel as a guide to deploy the ships. THIS second range ruler is beyond range 1 of the players edge (not within) and would (by your RAI) void those setups.

I am not a terrible rules lawyer simply because I am pointing out that the RAW does not literally agree with RIU and what may be RAI. Just because you do not agree with it (which is fine you're entitled to your opinion) don't simply dismiss it (as wrong).

@SkullNBones , you are wrong. Put plainly and simply, you are incorrect in your interpretation of the rules.

I believe that your error lies in the fact that you think that others' incorrect play is tacit approval illegal play. Placing a range ruler outside of Range 1, for whatever reason, is explicitly prohibited in Step 6 of the Setup rules in the Tournament Regulations document. Please note: what you describe (placing a range ruler at R1 to create a "front limit" for deployment) is a common occurrence and familiar sight. Many players do this.

That does not make it correct and legal. The rules forbid using any object to measure spacing or placement other than range rulers and movement templates wholly within Range 1. Measuring the front alignment and position of a ship is still measuring. If playing against an opponent who did that, I would technically be within my rights to call a judge and ask them to require a redeployment of ships, ensuring that a template is not used in such a way. It may not be very sportsmanlike to do so, but it would still be correct .

Don't get me wrong - I understand your viewpoint. There is rarely (if ever) any intent to gain knowledge by creating that "box" for deployment, and it is handy for ensuring a legal placement for all of your ships. Perhaps a better way to further your point is to admit that, while using a ruler in that way is explicitly against RAW (and that there is no RAI precedent to make it acceptable), it nevertheless remains a helpful and functional way to deploy ships, in situations that are not highly competitive.

On 10/03/2018 at 3:33 AM, SkullNBones said:

@muribundi yet, you ignore the fact that the text says "...may not measure...", placing an object that extends beyond range 1 during set up is not inherently measuring anything (even if the object used is a range ruler). The text does not say you may not place an object beyond range 1.

Except you can't place an object beyond range 1. Measuring or not measuring. YOU CAN'T PLACE IT BEYOND RANGE 1:

"Players cannot measure distance and spacing with physical objects during setup"

You can't never measure, this is the base rule. During placement, you can't measure anything anywhere.

"except when using range rulers and maneuver templates within Range 1 of that player’s edge."

Then they create an exception, the exception is using object WITHIN range 1. The exception do not let you place the object anywhere. It let you place the object within range 1. If the object go farther then range 1 it is not within anymore. This is not the measurement that must happen within, this is the object that must be within.

I'm trying to figure out why you continue to decide that the word within apply to the first part of the rule. The two are not related.

@muribundi , you continue to use the same phrase from the tournament regulations that I already quoted "...Players place their ships in ascending order of pilot skill as per standard X-Wing rules. Players cannot measure distance and spacing with physical objects during setup except when using range rulers and maneuver templates within Range 1 of that player’s edge..."P5, Game Setup, Step 6.

As the definitive ruling, however, that only states one may not " measure distance and spacing", it says nothing about said objects used to measure within range 1 of the players edge extending beyond it.

The key issue is that the wording points to measurement as the defining parameter and it is insufficient.

and AGAIN, I fully grasp and understand and AGREE WITH the RAI, but it does not match the RAW. A simple fix would be to amend the end of the step a long the lines of "and when doing so, the object(s) used can not extend beyond range 1 of the players edge". Done, that would provide the RAW to match RAI. However until that is done, someone can (as I am doing so now) make a case that they are within their rights (according to the rules) to allow an object to extend beyond range 1 as long as they only measure with that object within range 1. This may be sketchy as all get out and a dodgy way to play, but it is legal by RAW.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

The key issue is that the wording points to measurement as the defining parameter and it is insufficient.

and AGAIN, I fully grasp and understand and AGREE WITH the RAI, but it does not match the RAW. A simple fix would be to amend the end of the step a long the lines of "and when doing so, the object(s) used can not extend beyond range 1 of the players edge". Done, that would provide the RAW to match RAI. However until that is done, someone can (as I am doing so now) make a case that they are within their rights (according to the rules) to allow an object to extend beyond range 1 as long as they only measure with that object within range 1. This may be sketchy as all get out and a dodgy way to play, but it is legal by RAW.

Emphasis mine above. You ***could*** do that. You'd be overruled by any judge or marshall, and if you persisted in behavior that would at that point be determined to be cheating (because it's now been explained to you that you may NOT do what you were doing), you'd be removed from the tournament.

6 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

and AGAIN, I fully grasp and understand and AGREE WITH the RAI, but it does not match the RAW. A simple fix would be to amend the end of the step a long the lines of "and when doing so, the object(s) used can not extend beyond range 1 of the players edge". Done, that would provide the RAW to match RAI.

But...

That is exactly what RAW says.

Within means wholly within , so you cannot extend rulers beyond range 1.

As we've said like 15 times already in this thread.

This is actually taken from the Rules Reference. Replacing the word "ship" with "range ruler" still maintains the integrity of the rule, and is thus still "rules as written". If your argument includes that because this statement says nothing about range rules, well then, I'm checked out of this thread in its entirety.

6 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

A simple fix would be to amend the end of the step a long the lines of "and when doing so, the object(s) used can not extend beyond range 1 of the players edge".

It is already the case !??!?!?!

Can you explain to everyone here the difference between your sentence and this one ?!?!?!??!?!??!!

"when using range rulers and maneuver templates within Range 1 of that player’s edge."

With a bit of chance, will we get this one locked too lol

2 hours ago, muribundi said:

It is already the case !??!?!?!

Can you explain to everyone here the difference between your sentence and this one ?!?!?!??!?!??!!

"when using range rulers and maneuver templates within Range 1 of that player’s edge."

Because our language has a literal meaning and a figurative one. If you state that something can only be measured within range one (which the RAW do), it literally declares nothing about the object one uses extending beyond range 1. ONLY that what you measure must be within range 1. The language banning extending the physical object beyond range 1 is missing from the statement and therefore can be legally argued for; implication is not application.

The language in this rule is clear. You may only measure within range 1, and a range ruler that extends beyond range 1 is both measuring distance and not within range 1 per FFG's definition of what 'within' means in game terms.