2 hours ago, slasher956 said:

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.

Ok.. If that's cool then you should also be able to say "I can't really tell where my ship is going to end up but I don't want it to ram and I want it to be in range of such and such, so I'm just going to adjust the yaw here or measure out range to my maneuver tool because my spacial awareness is a handicap."

Is that not the same thing?

20 hours 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'm going to challenge this very strongly. All movement in Armada is in fact exceptionally precise. Ship movement in particular is never in question. The position of a ship, given the original position, the speed, and the arrangement of clicks on the maneuver tool, is beyond question. Every ship, given the same parameters, will end up in the same position. I see absolutely no reason this should not extend to squadrons.

15 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

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.

I have some spares. Give me your postal address and I will fix this (insofar as I can, I can't help American or Canadian customs services) by the beginning of next week.

6 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

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.

I very strongly agree with this sentiment. Setting aside any legality, this is what I would rather deal with, because it means my opponent's fleet is operating at maximum possible efficiency. I would much rather beat or lose to my opponent at his/her best than win because of unforced, unnecessary errors.

2 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I'm going to challenge this very strongly. All movement in Armada is in fact exceptionally precise. Ship movement in particular is never in question. The position of a ship, given the original position, the speed, and the arrangement of clicks on the maneuver tool, is beyond question. Every ship, given the same parameters, will end up in the same position. I see absolutely no reason this should not extend to squadrons.

Sorry yes, that is right. I meant that there is doubt as to the exact range to stuff after your movement is complete. Even whether or not you'll fit and be able to complete the maneuver is often just an educated guess. It is not a certain thing.

12 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

Ok.. If that's cool then you should also be able to say "I can't really tell where my ship is going to end up but I don't want it to ram and I want it to be in range of such and such, so I'm just going to adjust the yaw here or measure out range to my maneuver tool because my spacial awareness is a handicap."

Is that not the same thing? 

Not really because you set the speed of the ship & it has to go at that speed and can only move at the allowed Yaws... and you can alter those hover it then go back and alter it again.... I'm just saying you should be allowed the same latitude with squadrons. Sorry if that didnt come across

5 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

Not really because you set the speed of the ship & it has to go at that speed and can only move at the allowed Yaws... and you can alter those hover it then go back and alter it again.... I'm just saying you should be allowed the same latitude with squadrons. Sorry if that didnt come across

And you're free to premeasure for squads too right? But once you've determined a course you can't go back and change where your ship will end up, you have to guess and approximate and hope for the best when you lock in that tool. I get that squad interactions are pretty important, but so are ship to squad and ship to ship interactions and I've often guessed wrong with my ships and not been able to activate squads or been our of range for BCC. Or, with my fancy CR90 flying let it land within one of 2 mines or just inside close range of the side of an ISD. Those guesses cost me a 50 point ship.

Also, trying to not be antagonistic. I appreciate the discussion.. even if you're wrong

What needs to happen: FFG should clarify, in no uncertain terms, what they expect for this part of the game. Then this discussion would end.

Not quite... you dont determine a course for squadrons..they end up within distance x (where x = squadron speed) from their starting location.

Honestly my approach is ... I want to have a fun game & human interaction ... its you are out by fractions of an inch range I'll let it slide but that distance works both ways (ie if your in range 1 so am I). It also helps that you both agree on distances as I've had one of us in range some ones knocked the table and the ships have moved slightly so are now out of range yet neither ship has 'moved'. So in that case I've always gone was in range the other way so go for it.

9 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

Ok.. If that's cool then you should also be able to say "I can't really tell where my ship is going to end up but I don't want it to ram and I want it to be in range of such and such, so I'm just going to adjust the yaw here or measure out range to my maneuver tool because my spacial awareness is a handicap."

Is that not the same thing?

No, it's not. That is a gross false equivalency. Ship movement is extremely precise for a reason, and that not only violates the letter but the spirit of the rules. For squads, FFG has not provided an equivalent way to achieve equal precision. See my above post for my preferences on this matter, but at a certain point this is a game involving two people. The objective is for both people to enjoy the game, and for it to go as smoothly as possible. You are implying with your comparison that when people work with their opponents to make sure their squads are arranged that what they are explicitly attempting to achieve is illegal advantage rather than precision, beyond the capabilities of the squadrons in question, which is what your ship example is explicitly acquiring. If Mauler has to move past speed 4 to hit Jan and not Wedge, sorry, you're SOL, but if he can reach it, by all means, check and line it up.

Sidebar: I also note those discussions are also very useful for the inevitabilities of the game, specifically bumping. If we know that Wedge was out of range of Mauler, then when an ISD has to move Mauler to lay down the maneuver tool, even if Mauler ends up in range of Wedge when he goes back down because human error, we know Wedge has to twitch to hit him.

5 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

Sorry yes, that is right. I meant that there is doubt as to the exact range to stuff after your movement is complete. Even whether or not you'll fit and be able to complete the maneuver is often just an educated guess. It is not a certain thing.

Yes, it is often an EWAG, but it's an EWAG that is verifiable and falsifiable.

I'll be honest, RAW you two have a strong case that the currently understood way to play the game is correct. I don't happen to believe that Step 2, specifically its last line:

Quote

Then remove the range ruler and place the squadron in the final position.

does not explicitly forbid using the range ruler to check and adjust the squad between its initial removal and its final position, and I will never challenge someone for fudging the rules such that they are not gaining an advantage but simply removing their own minor mechanical error, provided they extend the same courtesy to me. By all means play your way, but I believe the current understanding is not only legal but overall good for the game and its complete state.

5 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

No, it's not. That is a gross false equivalency. Ship movement is extremely precise for a reason, and that not only violates the letter but the spirit of the rules.

I was making the comparison on a "spacial awareness" front there.

6 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

The objective is for both people to enjoy the game, and for it to go as smoothly as possible. You are implying with your comparison that when people work with their opponents to make sure their squads are arranged that what they are explicitly attempting to achieve is illegal advantage rather than precision, beyond the capabilities of the squadrons in question, which is what your ship example is explicitly acquiring. If Mauler has to move past speed 4 to hit Jan and not Wedge, sorry, you're SOL, but if he can reach it, by all means, check and line it up.

I agree with smooth and agreeable and fun games. If we were playing and you wanted to play this way I would be happy to defer to your interpretation and play on. We could communicate and agree and play a game and that's really what matters, yes.

My reading of the rules, though, makes this squad play just as illegal as measuring range while moving a ship.

I am not willing to be a jerk and insist that everyone play the way I feel is right, though. Especially since I seem to be in the minority. That kind of play will leave you quickly with no one left to play with. But just because I'm willing to let it go in games doesn't mean I still don't feel that it's wrong and would like FFG to clarify so we can know one way or another.

By all means FFG should clarify. Conflict is never good for a gaming community, and I appreciate your clear and demonstrated intent to help the community where you can, both in person and with your battle reports. Hopefully this will get clarified the next tine FFG does a FAQ

7 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Hopefully this will get clarified the next tine FFG does a FAQ

I'm not holding my breath

2 hours ago, durandal343 said:

I am not willing to be a jerk and insist that everyone play the way I feel is right, though. Especially since I seem to be in the minority. That kind of play will leave you quickly with no one left to play with. But just because I'm willing to let it go in games doesn't mean I still don't feel that it's wrong and would like FFG to clarify so we can know one way or another.

That's actually what you've been doing this entire thread. Everyone else is wrong, and you're right, and it needs to be your way. (see below as just one example)

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

27 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

That's actually what you've been doing this entire thread. Everyone else is wrong, and you're right, and it needs to be your way.

Yeah, I'm a pretty big jerk. But I try to hide it behind a thick wall of sarcasm so you never really know.. you know?

So here's the deal. I've been trying to have a discussion here about something that I think is important to the game. And this is the way discussions work. I get to say some stuff and then other people get to say some stuff and then we all think about stuff and say more stuff. I've gone out of my way to try to make sure that the people that disagree with me (everyone) feel respected. They have things to say that are way more intelligent than the usual drivel I come up with. That's one of the reasons I don't take many stands on the finer points of Armada rules. But here I think I have some legs to stand on. Just because I don't see things the same way you happen to doesn't mean it "needs to be my way." I feel pretty strongly about it. I mean, as strongly as I feel about any game that I play for fun in my basement. If Armada and these forums disappeared tomorrow I don't think it would leave a gaping hole in my soul, but I do enjoy the community and being a part of it.

27 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

(see below as just one example)    

That was funny right? The hill thing? Yup.. that was funny and self-deprecating and also a reference to a comment my better half made.

Hey everyone,

Ian Cross, Worlds judge, here. @GiledPallaeon directed me to what was being discussed here.
I love seeing threads like this because I enjoy seeing the collective logic of rules interpretation. ?

For those who don’t want to read an essay, I will say that according to my judgement and everything that I know from actual talks with Developers and Organized Play, and everything that I know of their thought process: The way in which the Semi-Finalists were maneuvering their squadrons is not considered to be against the rules (appreciation for Mogrok pointing out that if it had been, I would have called it during the game or during Swiss).

Now, onto some thoughts:

First off, I know that there is a contingent of people who will never take any line of reasoning, even if it comes from someone with my credentials, as “proof enough”, but will accept a simple “Yes” or “No” from a Developer, because that’s the word of god. If that’s how you feel, that’s fine. I’m not going to try to change your mind, because it’s not worth my time.
And if a Dev ever did say “You know what? We haven’t been enough of a stickler with the rules.” Then I would adjust my rulings accordingly. FAQs and Errata change the game constantly, and if I couldn’t change the way I make individual calls for new information (or wasn’t allowed to), I would be a bad judge. Occasionally though, I have to do the very best that I can with my own… judgement (see what I did there?)

---

As a preface to everything I’m going to discuss, I want us all to keep one simple thing in mind:

The rules tournament play are intended to balance 2 things against each other: Precision and Ease-of-Play

I have word direct from Organized Play that the “one-tool rule” was always intended to be something to ease play, and avoid situations in which players were laying out 2, 3, or more rulers on the table in order to acquire maximum precision for their turn and future turns. Attempting to keep to the rigorous letter of the rule is good, but keep in mind that its intention as stated by OP was simply to rein players in from taking multiple minutes to maneuver a single ship or squadron. As long as players are moving along quickly, even in their precision, the “goal” of the “one tool rule” has been reached.

But enough about intention. That gets murky quickly, so let’s look at some hard rules.

The question here is whether a range ruler during the “Move Squadron” portion of a squadron’s maneuver step may be in any position other than flat on the table (where it was placed during the “Determine Course” step) or : “If the range ruler cannot be placed in the play area due to other ships and squadrons being in the way, hold the range ruler above the play area and estimate the squadron’s final position.”

Move Squadron: “Pick up the squadron and position it anywhere along the center of the ruler up to the line that marks the end of the distance band matching the squadron’s speed value. The squadron’s base cannot be placed beyond that line. Then remove the range ruler and place the squadron in the final position. "

Let’s get super granular with that last little bit.

“Then”. What does that mean? If we look at the FAQ entry relating to a ship that would ram for final damage but ends its maneuver on a station still being destroyed, we know that a “then” effect can be considered as identical to a “when” effect. i.e. “At the moment that the specified event occurs.”

So, since “Players can measure with either side of the range ruler at any time.” , the obvious argument is that so long as the squadron does not violate that portion in the rule of “The squadron’s base cannot be placed beyond that line.” , one could follow the timing of:
>> Position squadron
>> Remove the range ruler
>> Use range ruler (at any time) to measure
>> Place the squadron in the final position

This of course begs the question of whether that final paragraph of timing during “Move Squadron” is considered the same as Dual Turbolaser Turrets. i.e. “You cannot resolve other effects… until you have completely resolved this (rule’s) effect.”

And then we’re just left to arguing, aren’t we?

Because if it isn’t considered the same as DTT, then everything the players are doing is 100% allowable.
---

So, since we appear to have hit a dead end in terms of what may or may not be allowable absent the specific attention of an FAQ, let’s take a look at what would unquestionably be allowable within the context of Rules As Written .

>> Player measures with any side of the range ruler at any time
>> Player positions range ruler as close as they physically can to their squadron in order to measure range without “locking in” their maneuver. Even though there isn’t a bullet point on what that means as we have for Ship Movement, we’ll consider touching the tool to the component to be the “lock”; same as ships
>> Player makes a mental note (or using stars on the playmat: a visual aid that is not a second tool, token, or other component) and measures with the range ruler at any time in order to estimate where from their final position will be most optimal for their final placement
>> Player double and triple checks their measurements, as they are not allowed to use the range ruler once they have touched it to their squadron base, but so far everything they are doing is within the context of Rules as Written.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a nightmare to me. And I don’t even have to guess, because I have seen games play out almost exactly that way. The harsher restrictions you place on players who are attempting to maintain whatever maximum precision they can, the more obstinate they will become in their efforts to maintain precision.

You may think that by locking down the ability to make small measurements at the “end” of a squadron’s maneuver, you will encourage a slightly more lax playstyle, but that will never be the case.
---

In the end, it comes down to the portion in the tournament regulations which states: ” 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.

Whatever arguments you care to make regarding the Dual-Turbolaser-esque timing interaction of a moving squadron and the range ruler, the extra inclusion of that tournament regulation makes it very clear what is allowed during a squadron’s movement, and when that movement is considered to have ended .

There. That is my official “By the rules” judgement.
---


I will circle back around to the mention I made earlier of balancing “Precision” with “Ease-of-play”. All Armada players want both of these things, and even the argument against how squadron's are being used at top tables is precisely this.
People want the players to maintain a precision to the rules as written, and as an added benefit, to cut the type of granular squadron placement that slows games down.

It’s a commendable thing. And for the record, I appreciate your attention to the rules.

The beauty of this argument is that these two needs are actually served equally by the status quo. If we attempt to lock players down tighter, games will just take longer for the reasons that I already listed. While the highest levels of play often see a granularity that doesn’t exist in more casual games, the fact of the matter is that it will exist in some form no matter what is done. And while I don’t advocate leaving something that is broken or against the rules “just because people have always done it that way”, I truly believe that we have reached the best compromise that we can hope for.

That may chafe some people, but it is an important thing to realize.

We are not computers. If we were, this is the sort of thing that would cause errors in code and make our game crash.

We, as humans playing a non-digital game are capable of looking at a problem and applying the tiniest leeway of non-restrictive thinking to it. Rules are paramount, but common sense is just as important.

That was great! And now I will retire from my defunct hill...

RIP hill of squad movement!

Also I wanted to add in... that was a really really great answer.

38 minutes ago, i2xCross said:

@GiledPallaeon directed me to what was being discussed here.

"Hey so I've got this annoying know it all jerk over here who who I can't get to shut up. Will you please come shut him up for me?"

Word for word how that went

39 minutes ago, i2xCross said:

Hey everyone,

Ian Cross, Worlds judge, here. @GiledPallaeon directed me to what was being discussed here.
I love seeing threads like this because I enjoy seeing the collective logic of rules interpretation. ?

For those who don’t want to read an essay, I will say that according to my judgement and everything that I know from actual talks with Developers and Organized Play, and everything that I know of their thought process: The way in which the Semi-Finalists were maneuvering their squadrons is not considered to be against the rules (appreciation for Mogrok pointing out that if it had been, I would have called it during the game or during Swiss).

Now, onto some thoughts:

First off, I know that there is a contingent of people who will never take any line of reasoning, even if it comes from someone with my credentials, as “proof enough”, but will accept a simple “Yes” or “No” from a Developer, because that’s the word of god. If that’s how you feel, that’s fine. I’m not going to try to change your mind, because it’s not worth my time.
And if a Dev ever did say “You know what? We haven’t been enough of a stickler with the rules.” Then I would adjust my rulings accordingly. FAQs and Errata change the game constantly, and if I couldn’t change the way I make individual calls for new information (or wasn’t allowed to), I would be a bad judge. Occasionally though, I have to do the very best that I can with my own… judgement (see what I did there?)

---

As a preface to everything I’m going to discuss, I want us all to keep one simple thing in mind:

The rules tournament play are intended to balance 2 things against each other: Precision and Ease-of-Play

I have word direct from Organized Play that the “one-tool rule” was always intended to be something to ease play, and avoid situations in which players were laying out 2, 3, or more rulers on the table in order to acquire maximum precision for their turn and future turns. Attempting to keep to the rigorous letter of the rule is good, but keep in mind that its intention as stated by OP was simply to rein players in from taking multiple minutes to maneuver a single ship or squadron. As long as players are moving along quickly, even in their precision, the “goal” of the “one tool rule” has been reached.

But enough about intention. That gets murky quickly, so let’s look at some hard rules.

The question here is whether a range ruler during the “Move Squadron” portion of a squadron’s maneuver step may be in any position other than flat on the table (where it was placed during the “Determine Course” step) or : “If the range ruler cannot be placed in the play area due to other ships and squadrons being in the way, hold the range ruler above the play area and estimate the squadron’s final position.”

Move Squadron: “Pick up the squadron and position it anywhere along the center of the ruler up to the line that marks the end of the distance band matching the squadron’s speed value. The squadron’s base cannot be placed beyond that line. Then remove the range ruler and place the squadron in the final position. "

Let’s get super granular with that last little bit.

“Then”. What does that mean? If we look at the FAQ entry relating to a ship that would ram for final damage but ends its maneuver on a station still being destroyed, we know that a “then” effect can be considered as identical to a “when” effect. i.e. “At the moment that the specified event occurs.”

So, since “Players can measure with either side of the range ruler at any time.” , the obvious argument is that so long as the squadron does not violate that portion in the rule of “The squadron’s base cannot be placed beyond that line.” , one could follow the timing of:
>> Position squadron
>> Remove the range ruler
>> Use range ruler (at any time) to measure
>> Place the squadron in the final position

This of course begs the question of whether that final paragraph of timing during “Move Squadron” is considered the same as Dual Turbolaser Turrets. i.e. “You cannot resolve other effects… until you have completely resolved this (rule’s) effect.”

And then we’re just left to arguing, aren’t we?

Because if it isn’t considered the same as DTT, then everything the players are doing is 100% allowable.
---

So, since we appear to have hit a dead end in terms of what may or may not be allowable absent the specific attention of an FAQ, let’s take a look at what would unquestionably be allowable within the context of Rules As Written . 

>> Player measures with any side of the range ruler at any time
>> Player positions range ruler as close as they physically can to their squadron in order to measure range without “locking in” their maneuver. Even though there isn’t a bullet point on what that means as we have for Ship Movement, we’ll consider touching the tool to the component to be the “lock”; same as ships 
>> Player mak  es a mental note (or using stars on the playmat: a visual aid that is not a second tool, token, or other component) and measures with the range ruler at any time in order to estimate where from their final position will be most optimal for their final placement 
>> Player double and triple checks their measurements, as they are not allowed to use the range ruler once they have touched it to their squadron base, but so far everything they are doing is within the context of Rules as Written. 

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a nightmare to me. And I don’t even have to guess, because I have seen games play out almost exactly that way. The harsher restrictions you place on players who are attempting to maintain whatever maximum precision they can, the more obstinate they will become in their efforts to maintain precision.

You may think that by locking down the ability to make small measurements at the “end” of a squadron’s maneuver, you will encourage a slightly more lax playstyle, but that will never be the case.
---

In the end, it comes down to the portion in the tournament regulations which states: ” 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.

Whatever arguments you care to make regarding the Dual-Turbolaser-esque timing interaction of a moving squadron and the range ruler, the extra inclusion of that tournament regulation makes it very clear what is allowed during a squadron’s movement, and when that movement is considered to have ended .

There. That is my official “By the rules” judgement.
---


I will circle back around to the mention I made earlier of balancing “Precision” with “Ease-of-play”. All Armada players want both of these things, and even the argument against how squadron's are being used at top tables is precisely this.
People want the players to maintain a precision to the rules as written, and as an added benefit, to cut the type of granular squadron placement that slows games down.

It’s a commendable thing. And for the record, I appreciate your attention to the rules.

The beauty of this argument is that these two needs are actually served equally by the status quo. If we attempt to lock players down tighter, games will just take longer for the reasons that I already listed. While the highest levels of play often see a granularity that doesn’t exist in more casual games, the fact of the matter is that it will exist in some form no matter what is done. And while I don’t advocate leaving something that is broken or against the rules “just because people have always done it that way”, I truly believe that we have reached the best compromise that we can hope for.

That may chafe some people, but it is an important thing to realize.

We are not computers. If we were, this is the sort of thing that would cause errors in code and make our game crash.

We, as humans playing a non-digital game are capable of looking at a problem and applying the tiniest leeway of non-restrictive thinking to it. Rules are paramount, but common sense is just as important.

Thorough, and if I'm being honest, about 48 hours swifter than I expected a response. (Not a knock on you @i2xCross , more FFG as a whole .) Thanks for the reply.

3 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

"Hey so I've got this annoying know it all jerk over here who who I can't get to shut up. Will you please come shut him up for me?"

Word for word how that went

I'd summon the text of my message, but believe it or not, I don't actually have access anymore. @i2xCross ought to still have it and is more than welcome to copy it here though. I 'll acknowledge my initial responses were a little harsh/unfeeling, but I try to avoid being an a**. Also, for the record, I'm glad you brought it up and stood your ground, now that we have this to sort out future debates.

1 minute ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I'd summon the text of my message, but believe it or not, I don't actually have access anymore. @i2xCross ought to still have it and is more than welcome to copy it here though. I 'll acknowledge my initial responses were a little harsh/unfeeling, but I try to avoid being an a**. Also, for the record, I'm glad you brought it up and stood your ground, now that we have this to sort out future debates.

Oh please don't. I couldn't care less. I was just having a little fun at my own expense that's all. I'm not quite that desperate for validation.. yet. I feel like we had a good conversation.

I'm very glad that I could be of service! (and apparently 2 days faster than expected ? )

Thank you for your kind words, durandal.

I guess this isn't super-directly related, but one thing I really appreciate about Armada is the ship movement tool. It really does reduce measurement insanity, as the "tool doesn't lie" (though I guess you can ever so slightly tweak the angles!)

I really wish we had something equivalent for fighter movement just to speed up play. To be clear, I love the fact that Armada can account for the differences between x-wings and a-wings and even the overall emphasis difference between Rebels and Imperials through the fighter mechanics. But without a doubt, for me the worst part of this game is dealing with fighters- their fiddly bases, the activation sliders, the HP counter- it's just plain frustrating. I would hate to see fighters taken out of the game or "abstracted" into a bonus die or something. But boy do I hate trying to grab a y-wing in the middle of a hot mess to adjust the HP counter.

What would happen if round 5 in a championship match. A video bloggers camera fell on the table bumping ships? Bumping happens. It’s a miniature game. I’m ok with minor wiggles/bumps. It happens. If your off by 1/1000000000000 of micro meter. Oh well. If your off by 1/100000000000 then. Idk. Get a rope??? Jk

3 hours ago, i2xCross said:

We are not computers.

Nice try. That's just what a computer would say.

In seriousness, thank you for the prompt, clear, and well-considered response.

In my opinion this interpretation gives an advantege for the heavy squadron lists.
Also that eliminates an element of risk in squadron positioning and it is literally against the rules.
I am not happy with this as I don't like heavy squadron games and heavy squadron lists are OP but I won't be mourning

3 hours ago, Wawa666 said:

In my opinion this interpretation gives an advantege for the heavy squadron lists.
Also that eliminates an element of risk in squadron positioning and it is literally against the rules.
I am not happy with this as I don't like heavy squadron games and heavy squadron lists are OP but I won't be mourning

Hey so yeah,

*climbs back up the Hill of Squadron Movement*

I still agree that in a strict reading of the rules it's iffy but...

*gets tired and wanders back down to the Plains of Armada Harmony*

We got a very good explanation, well thought out, with rules interpretation, from a source I am not qualified to argue with. Unless FFG releases something in an FAQ this really is the best we have to go on. It will be ruled this way at all tournaments and resistance has become futile. Time to assimilate.

8 hours ago, durandal343 said:

Hey so yeah,

*climbs back up the Hill of Squadron Movement*

I still agree that in a strict reading of the rules it's iffy but...

*gets tired and wanders back down to the Plains of Armada Harmony*

We got a very good explanation, well thought out, with rules interpretation, from a source I am not qualified to argue with. Unless FFG releases something in an FAQ this really is the best we have to go on. It will be ruled this way at all tournaments and resistance has become futile. Time to assimilate.

Eh, I might do quite the opposite... but I guess that is because I am a TO and thus I have the Authority. ?