Couldn’t find a reason why not but I want to see how other TO’s would see this. After a player locks in the yaws and speed, if you hold the maneuver tool where you’ve locked it into the base, thus locking in the maneuver, the opposite end still has some slight give to it. If that extra tiny flex at the other end lets a ship avoid an overlap or edge of the board that really matters. I’m not talking about a half yaw, I’m referring to the fact that the tool has a little bit of give since it isn’t anchors to the board. Any issues with this since they are holding the tool down at the end where it was put into the base?

I mean it says in the RRG if the tool cannot be placed due to things being in its way....hold it above the table and guesstimate final position, so I'm completely and utterly fine with it being on the table and locked in...minor flex or not.

if you are placing your ship and then leaning into the tool to bend it then that is not acceptable in my book.

In my experience most players put a finger on the end of the tool to keep it in place before placing the ship, sometimes even asking your opponent to do so for you. The manoeuvre tool gets quite flexible after use so in tight spots it's always best to try and fix the end spot before moving the ship.

31 minutes ago, Kendraam said:

In my experience most players put a finger on the end of the tool to keep it in place before placing the ship, sometimes even asking your opponent to do so for you. The manoeuvre tool gets quite flexible after use so in tight spots it's always best to try and fix the end spot before moving the ship.

Yup, this. I always aim to set the manoeuvre tool, lock it into the base, pin down the step I'm moving to, and only then shift the ship.

On 4/4/2018 at 7:49 PM, Ken-Obi said:

Couldn’t find a reason why not but I want to see how other TO’s would see this. After a player locks in the yaws and speed, if you hold the maneuver tool where you’ve locked it into the base, thus locking in the maneuver, the opposite end still has some slight give to it. If that extra tiny flex at the other end lets a ship avoid an overlap or edge of the board that really matters. I’m not talking about a half yaw, I’m referring to the fact that the tool has a little bit of give since it isn’t anchors to the board. Any issues with this since they are holding the tool down at the end where it was put into the base?

We've had this discussion locally. Several of our players are using tools from the original core sets they bought 3 years ago, so many have play up to nearly a 1/4" As a TO I tend to rule against it if it's obvious and excessive and go case by case. We had a player one time go through each maneuver his ship could make at that speed and flex his ruler as much as it could to avoid landing in arc of an ISD. At that point I had the player pick his path and pin both ends before placing the ship. In earnest, if you abuse that play in the ruler it's more unsportsmanlike than illegal in my book. If they're being a **** about it, then yeah, I'll rule against 'em.

23 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

We've had this discussion locally. Several of our players are using tools from the original core sets they bought 3 years ago, so many have play up to nearly a 1/4" As a TO I tend to rule against it if it's obvious and excessive and go case by case. We had a player one time go through each maneuver his ship could make at that speed and flex his ruler as much as it could to avoid landing in arc of an ISD. At that point I had the player pick his path and pin both ends before placing the ship. In earnest, if you abuse that play in the ruler it's more unsportsmanlike than illegal in my book. If they're being a **** about it, then yeah, I'll rule against 'em.

Unsportsmanlike IS illegal according to the fundamental event document and tournament regulations ?

Also, there is this in Tourney Regs pg 7 MARGIN OF ERROR:

Quote

A small margin of error is allowed in the position and orientation of ships in these situations so that the pace of the game is not unnecessarily affected. Players should not abuse this margin of error, and they must use the components included with the game to be as accurate as possible.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Unsportsmanlike IS illegal according to the fundamental event document and tournament regulations ?

I'm aware.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

Also, there is this in Tourney Regs pg 7 MARGIN OF ERROR:

This.

And I’ll iterate here...

I am a nice guy. I feel I am a good TO...

I adhere to the rules, and I’m always down for discussion - but 200%, I will not stand for dishonesty.

Cheaters in Games are the ultimate at Dishonest given this format.

If you cheat - And it’s deliberate, and/or repeated...

... You will be defenstrated.

So I tend to... yknow... be vocal and without... tact...

Just because you have play in your maneuver tool doesn’t mean you should use or abuse it.

That is cheating.

And it gets me legitimately angry.

so there’s only so much advice I can give ... not much of it is useful...

I appreciate all the comments. I can see it either way. To me it feels like with the imperfect and sometimes inconsistent tools, plus the “hold it above and eyeball it” rule that it’s hard to say the designers are taking a hardline stance on every measurement being perfectly precise.

The player in question isn’t a dishonest player or a WAAC kind of person. So I think he’s just reading into it as no big deal. Part of the reason I posted it is I’ve never seen anyone else do it though (locally) so I was curious if anyone else had experience with this.

At first the movement tool in Armada looks cool but in practice it is problematic.

Back in the '90's when I was developing a Star Wars game I had a very similar mechanic to move the ships (except mine had different thicknesses for ship size so the clicks were at a lesser angle for large ships and a greater angle for small ships) after playtesting I had the same problems I have with the tool as the tool in Armada so I dropped the idea and developed a lot better movement system which is in my game now (which I had to change to a WW2 naval game because WotC and Lucas Film never replied to my Emails and I couldn't afford the IP licence).