4 minutes ago, Old Sarge said:

This is just a rules question, really.

Of course it's a rules question, because having "abuse of the rules" be a rule is meaningless if you're not talking about otherwise following the rules.

Why do you think "abuse of the rules" is against the rules in the first place? What possible case can you ever see for ever enforcing it (or it even existing, which it does), if you believe that "anything allowed by the rules is, by definition, not abuse"?

7 minutes ago, Old Sarge said:

I will also note the difficulty of enforcement if it isn’t allowed.

X-Wing, like nearly all games, relies heavily on players to self-enforce, because no rules-set is 100% comprehensive, and there is nothing wrong with that. A player knows if he or she is abusing a rule, including the "measure for TL" rule. (Most players that do it do it with visible sheepishness or an audible apology, in fact.) In addition, many times it's objectively clear that the player is abusing the rule.

Will there be circumstances in which (a) a player doesn't self-enforce, and (b) it's not objectively clear, so a judge won't enforce it? Sure, that will happen. And that's fine. Self-enforcement -- because a player is a decent person -- combined with judge enforcement -- because it's obvious abuse -- is still absolutely better than zero enforcement.

15 minutes ago, Old Sarge said:

What I think we’re discussing is the case where you declare a target lock on a ship when you are sure or pretty sure the ship is out of range. To confirm, you measure range, which gives a secondary benefit of helping both players quantify just how far apart the ships are.

When you are "sure," not "pretty sure." The rule for measuring for TLs is perfectly fine for cases in which you're "pretty sure," one way or the other.

So, you're absolutely certain a ship is either in-range or out-of-range for a TL. So, what, exactly, is being "confirmed" by the measurement here? You're self-admittedly not checking to see if you can actually acquire a TL ... so what are you doing, exactly?

If you'd like to continue to discuss this, please feel free to create a topic, so we can stop the tangent here. I'm definitely interested, because you're the first person I've ever heard say that using the "measuring for a TL" rule specifically solely to get other information is not abusing the rule. (To be clear, you're obviously not the first person I've heard defending abusing the rule. Just the first person I've heard say it's not rules abuse at all.) I find that fascinating.

Measuring for Locks that are obviously out of range is technically legal, due to unintended rules interaction, but by very definition, it is abusing the rules.

In legal terms, you commit a murder, but you get away with it, because of a technicality.

The two rules at play here:

Failed actions do not result in losing actions

You can pre-measure locks to decide whether the action fails or not.

However, this can result in a situation when you deliberately measure a ship that it well outside range 3, and you gain additional information about the distances between obstacles and other ships, etc.

This information however is not in the spirit of the game. If it were, pre measuring would be legal. It isn't.

However, it is legal in 2.0, but it costs an action. You can lock any object, gaining perfect information about the range between you and it.

7 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

However, it is legal in 2.0, but it costs an action. You can lock any object, gaining perfect information about the range between you and it.

As it should, always thought failure to execute should lose your action. You want to measure to X ship across the board you lose the ability to do anything else if it’s out of range, you attempt a barrel roll and bump then you just fail. In reality you don’t get to pull the stick and about hit something and decided ok other direction. Failure to complete an action should result in loss of action.

JUDGE!!

There’s no need to argue. I’m sure this has been long-settled in the judging community. Someone said previously that rules say you can’t abuse the rules. Lots of things abuse the rules but are still legal (Ghost/Finn comes to mind). Is declaring a lock and measuring to a ship that is clearly outside range 3 abusive to the point that it is illegal? If I call a judge at worlds and say, “I know that ship is beyond range 3, but I’d like to declare a lock and measure. Is that allowed?” What will the judge say? What if I’m 98% sure it’s out of range? 99.5%? If it’s not allowed, then there we have it. If it is allowed, I hope no one is giving people a hard time for doing it. I’d like to hear from a judge who knows.

I’ll hang up and listen.

12 minutes ago, Old Sarge said:

JUDGE!!

There’s no need to argue. I’m sure this has been long-settled in the judging community. Someone said previously that rules say you can’t abuse the rules. Lots of things abuse the rules but are still legal (Ghost/Finn comes to mind). Is declaring a lock and measuring to a ship that is clearly outside range 3 abusive to the point that it is illegal? If I call a judge at worlds and say, “I know that ship is beyond range 3, but I’d like to declare a lock and measure. Is that allowed?” What will the judge say? What if I’m 98% sure it’s out of range? 99.5%? If it’s not allowed, then there we have it. If it is allowed, I hope no one is giving people a hard time for doing it. I’d like to hear from a judge who knows.

I’ll hang up and listen.

We are not arguing.

It is legal, due to a technicality

It is abuse.

It depends on the judge. Most games I played, they allowed it.

The conversation wasn't about it being legal, it was about how the people who do it, are garbage people, like the people who murder others, then use a legal technicality to get away from it.

The point isn't that it is legal. It was about how something might be legal, while still being wrong.

You stated your position. There is not much to argue about here. I think what you are doing is going against the spirit of the game.

Ghost Fenn does not abuse the game rules. Ghost Fenn is a 100% legal and intentional combo (that makes it worse in some regards). When you are playing Ghost Fenn, there is no question about the legality of your interactions. The word abuse does not mean the same thing in both cases.

When you premeasure an out of range lock, you are exploiting a rule, to gain additional information that the game does not permit you to have. At all. Period.

Man, fudging manoeuvres is a seriously common pet peeve of mine. 80% of the time it's understandable correcting of a minor deployment mistake, like being 1 degree off with one ship in an 8-TIE swarm. But that other 20%...

Moving an RAClo Decimator to be just off of an asteroid instead of on it.
Nudging the arc of Strezra to 'surprisingly' catch the edge of my stressed PTL ship.
Nudging a ship to move it out of a Ghost's primary arc..
Really fudging a move with an outright bump, then putting all the surrounding pieces back just so to let an ace miraculously move through a rock cluster/blocking formation.

I've got 4 sets of cardboard templates and one of acrylic. Every single set is slightly different. What's to stop me bringing my four slightly different official cardboard sets to a tournament and using the piece that most corresponds to my current situation? Acrylics are even worse - mine are out by a good 3mm in linear measure, and I'm sure the 90 degree angles are a tad off too. Vassal is so much cleaner.

4 hours ago, Astech said:

I've got 4 sets of cardboard templates and one of acrylic. Every single set is slightly different. What's to stop me bringing my four slightly different official cardboard sets to a tournament and using the piece that most corresponds to my current situation?

Quote

Before or during a tournament round, any player may request that a single range ruler, set of maneuver templates, and/or set of dice be shared for the duration of the round.

The marshal may mandate that players must share a single range ruler, set of maneuver templates, and/or set of dice during a round.

This has come up in Armada tournaments before - with official, FFG range rulers being substantially longer or shorter and players trying to use whichever advantages them most. And the answer's the same in the Armada tournament regulations as in X-Wing's - the opponent, or the marshal, has the players share one set of tools if one of them is trying to game tool imprecision.

It's not a big deal, really, from a rules perspective.

On 7/22/2018 at 4:51 PM, Commander Kaine said:

The conversation wasn't about it being legal, it was about how the people who do it, are garbage people, like the people who murder others, then use a legal technicality to get away from it.

That escalated quickly!

2 minutes ago, Old Sarge said:

That escalated quickly!