I am watching stream from the WORLD SEMI FINALS and it pains my eyes how inappropriate squadron movement is executed! They are measuring distances DURING the movement! As long as You can measure only one thing at the time it is PROHIOBITED to measure ANYTHING except for the move range DURING the squadron move!!!!

Rules references:

Squadron Movement
To move a squadron, its owner proceeds through the
following steps:
1 . Determine Course: Place the range ruler flat on the
table with the distance side faceup. The center of the
distance 1 end of the ruler must be in contact with the
squadron’s base.

It is understood that the more applicable rule is that the squadron stays within its speed range, which was always initially checked, and that there be only one tool on the table. Once it is clear the squadron's destination is within the range of its movement, it is understood to be acceptable that the tool be moved to measure some other coordinate of interest to the final position, such as the range one attack limitation. Further, it is incumbent on the opponent to challenge "illegal" play, and seeing as both men made these choices, I really have a hard time believing that this is so unacceptable.

I also happen to know the judge for this event, and can guarantee you if your hardline interpretation was correct, it would have been enforced.

This kind of thing frustrates me. I have yet to hear an interpretation for squad movement that would allow the “squadron shuffle” as we are currently doing it other than “that’s how we like it.” The rules clearly state (IMO anyway, I am happy to be told I’m wrong. But please do it with rules references) that you may use only one tool and that to move squads you are to put the range ruler on he table. Any other measurement with another tool, or moving the range ruler to measure again, violates these rules. Why are we such sticklers for ALL other rules and not this one? Why can’t I get out my range ruler when I’m moving a ship then to make sure I end up in the range I want? If I can adjust a squad to be one away from a ship, should I not be able to adjust a ship (yaw etc) to ensure it’s in activation range or something of a squad?

? Ships have a fixed movement, it's a core mechanic of the game.

Squadrons have flexible movement, it's designed that way. Was it designed very poorly? Yes, but I think most people give enough flexibility to squadron movement based on the almost impossible way you're supposed to move them, with regards to how large the ruler is, and the fact that after the first turn it likely won't fit down flat on the board.

If people want to start being jerks about it, and demanding players strictly follow the rule regarding movement, I'm fine with that. If the ruler won't fit on the board, sorry I guess you can't move the squadron there.

2 hours ago, emsgoof said:

If people want to start being jerks about it, and demanding players strictly follow the rule regarding movement, I'm fine with that. If the ruler won't fit on the board, sorry I guess you can't move the squadron there.

Ok.. well.. you can hover the ruler (as you sometimes have to do in ship movement) or start from the max range and work backwards which would still be using one tool as rules seem to dictate.

Look, I know I'm being contrarian here and will be called out by the old guard as just not getting it but I feel like my questions hold weight. I am not trying to be judgmental or imply that I'm better somehow and know exactly how things should be, it is just strange that the rules are set aside (in my opinion) for this in even the biggest tournaments by the most stringent TOs. I don't get that.. that's all. If it's the way you want it FFG then redo the rule so it's actually that way. Because as written, the accepted squad movement is illegal (again... in my opinion and in my reading of the rules).

I don't want to upset people and I deserve the eyeroll. I'll take all the abuse I have coming if someone can explain how this can possibly be legal. And if it's technically not legal but we just do it that way... I guess I just don't get that thinking when as a community we seem to be pretty rule oriented.

I like you guys and respect you and have learned a ton from these forums. I am constantly put in my place on different rules and how they interact. I'm trying to be humble and confused at the same time. My first post was too antagonistic.. that gets us nowhere.. sorry.

Also.. for those assuming it wouldn't work.. when the FAQ came out we started playing with the one tool rule and no remeasuring from somewhere else after movement and it was just fine. We premeasured range from stuff.. then got our our range ruler and used it along the path of the squad to move it and done.

@durandal343 , I don't think you're being obnoxious (for what it's worth).

The short version is:
moving squads the way a lot of players did at Worlds (measure range, pick up squad, hover it around to then measure again to make sure it's exactly at distance whatever (usually 1) of whatever else, then drop it) is illegal. By the strict rules of the game, you should keep your distance ruler down at all times to ensure the squad you're moving isn't exceeding its movement limit, even if it seems obvious that it should be able to fit wherever.

That said, squadron movement takes forever and squad-heavy players, especially at a high level, are obsessive-compulsive about moving them just so . I generally don't care about the "move then bump back" maneuver, even if it's technically illegal, because the alternative is the squad player takes half a year premeasuring from everything to everything else and then forgets which tiny dot on the starmap it was he premeasured to then premeasures everything AGAIN and then finally moves the squad. Ugh, awful.

When they do Armada 2.0 at some point, I'd be a-okay with squads only being able to attack things they're in base-to-base with. The distance 1 engagement range combined with squad bubble effects (Intel, Norra, Jan, Rhymer, Escort, Dengar, Howlrunner, etc.) is what's creating this mess.

The problem I have is you are allowing an illegal answer to prevail when instead you should deserve to have opponents who .... play correctly, and do so in a speedy manner.

The “solution” provided does nothing for that end.

Basically - people don’t learn when you don’t require them to study.

But again, the problem then becomes if you are an “***” about that rule, other aspects are, by default, “thrown back in your face”...

I get more and more discouraged from trying, every day...

If people started playing as @Snipafist stated above, it would lead me to call a TO for slow play. What we have right now is a fine balance that still allows us to play with little plastic space ships in a timely fashion.

I personally would be more than happy to have squadrons completely removed from the game, maybe using them as an upgrade card for attack / defense or something.

14 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

If people started playing as @Snipafist stated above, it would lead me to call a TO for slow play. What we have right now is a fine balance that still allows us to play with little plastic space ships in a timely fashion.

The problem is FFG hasn't been specific enough when it comes to exactly how they want players to move squadrons - they've specified that once your hand is off the squad it's done moving and separately that you're only allowed one tool at a time, but if it's "clear" that the squadron is moving within the possible distance it was allowed, then the squadron player can plausibly make the argument that he isn't breaking the one-tool rule because the initial movement was measured for, the tool removed, and then the squadron's movement was fine-tuned using a distance 1 measurement stick after that and at no point was the squadron released from his hand prior to the end. I think you can definitely make the case that it's illegal by the rules as written, but a counter-argument can be made and you run the risk of being "that guy" if you press the issue.

It's not great. Again, base-to-base for squadron attacks would largely resolve one of the main factors that emphasizes this kind of nonsense, but that's a major change that would have balance repercussions and would need to be in a second edition. Not the kind of thing we could do now. For now, all we can really hope for is something in an FAQ where FFG very specifically lays out exactly how they want players to move squadrons and whether what I described above is legal or not. Some kind of guideline on what is taking too long when it comes to squadron premeasurements and such would help too.

4 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

For now, all we can really hope for is something in an FAQ where FFG very specifically lays out exactly how they want players to move squadrons and whether what I described above is legal or not.   

Squadron movement is a very basic part of the game. You’d hope FFG would say something explicit instead of relying on applying various rules that aren’t exactly clear to the situation.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

The problem I have is you are allowing an illegal answer to prevail when instead you should deserve to have opponents who .... play correctly, and do so in a speedy manner.

The “solution” provided does nothing for that end.

Basically - people don’t learn when you don’t require them to study.

But again, the problem then becomes if you are an “***” about that rule, other aspects are, by default, “thrown back in your face”...

I get more and more discouraged from trying, every day...

I have to say I couldn't agree more with this. When the new FAQ dropped elaborating on the 1 tool rule in regards to squad movement @durandal343 and I hadn't been playing that long so we shrugged and said ok. We saw that it's much more in line with how ships move in that you're never 100% on their final position in relation to the other pieces on the board until after you complete the move and then measure again. Why are so many so wrapped up in being so exact with premeasuring the final position of squads I don't quite understand (other than the advantage that it gives them).

This was my first time at World's and I definitely felt the pressure not the be "that guy" who was going to call this practice into question. Coupled with the fact that I saw how totally prevalent this practice was I had no idea how the TO would rule it. So in the end I just accepted that this was accepted.

But @Drasnighta is right... Instead of being afraid of how other players are going to respond or how this will affect the speed of play by our opponents should we not expect our opponents to play within the rules and in a timely manner?

Just random ponderings.

45 minutes ago, SgtDurandal said:

I have to say I couldn't agree more with this. When the new FAQ dropped elaborating on the 1 tool rule in regards to squad movement @durandal343 and I hadn't been playing that long so we shrugged and said ok. We saw that it's much more in line with how ships move in that you're never 100% on their final position in relation to the other pieces on the board until after you complete the move and then measure again. Why are so many so wrapped up in being so exact with premeasuring the final position of squads I don't quite understand (other than the advantage that it gives them).

This was my first time at World's and I definitely felt the pressure not the be "that guy" who was going to call this practice into question. Coupled with the fact that I saw how totally prevalent this practice was I had no idea how the TO would rule it. So in the end I just accepted that this was accepted.

But @Drasnighta is right... Instead of being afraid of how other players are going to respond or how this will affect the speed of play by our opponents should we not expect our opponents to play within the rules and in a timely manner?

Just random ponderings.

I've submitted it to the FFG rules team, hopefully we'll hear back from them soonish. Honestly, I wish I had asked Ian about it at either Adepticon or Worlds but at this point I may not see him again until Gencon perhaps, which is 3ish months out. The problem is you can make an argument for the practice and without FFG officially weighing in on the matter, one party or the other is going to feel that their will was overridden unfairly.

I wasn't aware that most of the people (including myself) do it wrong, but it seems that @Wawa666 is correct.

From tournament regulations:

Quote

Players may measure distance and/or range while moving squadrons. Once a player removes his or her hand from a squadron in a new position, the squadron is considered to have moved and cannot move any further during that activation.

A player can only use one tool at a time when measuring range, distance, or movement. A tool is defined as the range ruler, the maneuver tool, or another component such as a token.

When read in conjunction with squadron movement rules it seems that there should be no doubt abut how to execute it.

Quote

To move a squadron, its owner proceeds through the following steps:

1 . Determine Course: Place the range ruler flat on the table with the distance side faceup. The center of the
distance 1 end of the ruler must be in contact with the squadron’s base.

And just because most people (including top players apparently) play it wrong doesn't mean we should accept this just like that.

I think the most important thing is not to move the squadron further than its speed limit. Playing around with its final position is fine with me. I recently started using washers to mark squad positions and for movement and this helps immensely. I found a washer size that fits snugly in the cavity under the squadron base. This way when you pick up the squadron to change its health, move it, or if its in the way for some reason, the washer stays on the table to mark its exact position. When moving a squadron you can leave it in place, do your measuring, then place the washer down where you want the squadron to move. I've found using washers in this way to be the most accurate and also eliminates a lot of the bumping and shifting that goes with picking up and moving squadrons. Its not exactly by the book, but I've yet to play anyone that didn't think this was a big improvement and convenience.

13 minutes ago, Kristjan said:

I've yet to play anyone that didn't think this was a big improvement                and  convenience.

I’m not a huge fan of the washer system. I’ve found it to be presise to the point of aggravation. There is doubt in all movement in Armada. We just don’t accept it with squads. If we accepted the doubt and innacuracy of it things would improve. Or if FFG clarified...

I dislike sliding a token around to get presice measurements of range.

It’s also against the rules.

37 minutes ago, Kristjan said:

I think the most important thing is not to move the squadron further than its speed limit. Playing around with its final position is fine with me. I recently started using washers to mark squad positions and for movement and this helps immensely. I found a washer size that fits snugly in the cavity under the squadron base. This way when you pick up the squadron to change its health, move it, or if its in the way for some reason, the washer stays on the table to mark its exact position. When moving a squadron you can leave it in place, do your measuring, then place the washer down where you want the squadron to move. I've found using washers in this way to be the most accurate and also eliminates a lot of the bumping and shifting that goes with picking up and moving squadrons. Its not exactly by the book, but I've yet to play anyone that didn't think this was a big improvement and convenience.

From a precision and expedience standpoint a marker or washer system is about as good as it gets and for casual games I've often thought it would be great. Unfortunately, its a pretty glaring violation of the 1 tool rule.

20 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I’m not a huge fan of the washer system. I’ve found it to be presise to the point of aggravation. There is doubt in all movement in Armada. We just don’t accept it with squads. If we accepted the doubt and innacuracy of it things would improve. Or if FFG clarified...

I dislike sliding a token around to get presice measurements of range.

It’s also against the rules.

I know we've experience a couple tournaments where this was a common practice in the local meta and since we were outsiders we didn't say anything. One thing I noticed about the marker system is that it can really slow down play. The need to place the marker down and then measure every conceivable range in relation to every other piece on the board before finishing the movement can be frustrating to watch. But maybe that's not a product of using the markers as much as it is for the individual player's need to make squadron play as precise as possible? I don't know? I still keep coming back to the fact of how ships move in Armada. We accept that there is an element of uncertainty as to the final position of a ship when in Determine Course step. Why can we not accept the same element of uncertainty when we move squadrons?

Either way this is not a hill I'm going to die on. Just hoping FFG issues some clarification at some point down the road. Until then, I plan on going with the flow of the community.

3 minutes ago, SgtDurandal said:

Either way this is not a hill I'm going to die on.

As someone who this bothers more than others... I will build this hill until it is worthy of your sacrifice.

Before I got on the washer program, squad movement was so disorganized I really didn't care where or how my opponent moved his squads as long as he made an effort to not move beyond the squads move limit. Another problem is squads often need to be removed to use the ship tool or measure arc/line of sight, or when they take damage etc. It's just really convenient to be able to quickly pick them up leaving the washers in place to mark their position.

5 minutes ago, Kristjan said:

Before I got on the washer program, squad movement was so disorganized I really didn't care where or how my opponent moved his squads as long as he made an effort to not move beyond the squads move limit. Another problem is squads often need to be removed to use the ship tool or measure arc/line of sight, or when they take damage etc. It's just really convenient to be able to quickly pick them up leaving the washers in place to mark their position.

Yes, washers as markers for when you have to remove a squad for ship movement I do like. Just not the two washer move the squad system.

1 hour ago, durandal343 said:

As someone who this bothers more than others... I will build this hill until it is worthy of your sacrifice.

I think the problem is the “one tool” rule. It was brought in to speed play, but I think it had the opposite effect. If you could hold two tools you could be measuring max distance and range to opponents and say “yep - I am moving here and engage that one and not that one.”

We also need to remember not everyone has two full length arms and ten fingers. One of my regular opponents does not come with the standard package arms wise - to insist that he not take his hand off the fighter so he can pick up a ruler to check he is in range would be absurd. Allowing multiple rulers, tokens, etc is often necessary (also short people and reaching the other side of the table, etc).

Actually at last years worlds. Washers were allowed in the finals. And this year Ian had no issues during Swiss. As long as when you place the washer it is for all intents and purposes the Sqn. It is not a second tool when you are marking the original position which prevents excess movement and you always know where you started from. All you’re doing then is moving the Sqn from one disk to the other. No difference then moving the Sqn. Then placing a washer under it.

I only own the one range ruler, being that I only have the core set (as expected by FFG)

As range rulers are not sold separately by FFG why should I be penalized by not winning tournaments, or having the money to third party?

What token to use? I generally use all of my general use tokens in a game and I would be confusing my opponents by using redundant ones - or taking time to find a suitable one...

The rule is there for more than just speed reasons. It’s there for consistency.

The problem is this: if you take the hardline approach, you encourage exactly the most unpleasant kind of legal result. As mentioned above, players will take their time trying to get everything right, and they should, slow play risk or not, because it genuinely matters. Scenarios like "I need Mauler to kill Jan without engaging Wedge" are often pivotal to the game. Secondly, you're rewarding visuospatial ability over raw strategy or skill. If I wanted steady hands and a keen eye for distance to offer an edge, I'd have taken up archery. There's a definite case to be made for why it's not legal, but that doesn't make it wrong. Picture what's being endorsed here. The final worlds match drew some complaints as is...

As for only having one range ruler... I only have three red dice, being that I only have the core set and the Chimaera. Since FFG didn't include a pen to record die results, I guess I won't be concentrating fire with my Neb or VSD-1 ever... And I don't have enough command dials to include Thrawn and still fight my friend... and I don't have enough round tokens to use Pryce...

4 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Secondly, you're rewarding visuospatial ability over raw strategy or skill.

This....

Why have games like warhammer (FBS) done away with guess weapons in the rules? because why should the person who can measure down to 1/18th" with their eyes get a bonus to the person with no depth perception?

Personally I'm fine with doing away with the one tool rule OR put into the rules player interaction... eg saying 'I'm moving forward so I'm just in range 1 of X but not Y' then make sure that the end point is not further than your max move.