Problem with your arguement is that a designers response is vague and b the rrg has NOT been updated about range.

Page 4, golden rules

When the rrg is updated thats another story, but until then the event marshals interpretation is the final word.

My opinion doesn't matter, its the event marshal's interpretation that matters. Argue with an event marshal at your own peril.

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

Problem with your arguement is that a designers response is vague

What is vague about "Range is always measured purely horizontally"?

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

Problem  with your arguement is that a designers response i  s ***  u  e

Yeah, you’re definitely not using that word correctly. Davy’s response was very specific and clear. (Edit: I have no words on that censorship right there, lol.)

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

Page  4, golden rul  es 

This is not a case where the golden rule applies. The golden rule clarifies what happens in RRG vs card interactions or conflicts.

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

Argue  with an event marshal at your own peril.  

One could say that the marshal can argue with the lead game designer at his or her own peril ?

You're going to play the way you want, and publicly act the way you want, and it's a pretty pointless endeavor for people on an Internet forum to try to change either of those. But your arguments definitely don't hold water. There is nothing vague about Davy saying publicly at conventions and in official e-mails that this is the intended way to play. And your reference to the golden rule is either you grabbing at straws or you not reading well...it literally says nothing to apply to this situation.

And while I don't have personal experience with tournament marshals (so I don't know how they are likely to behave), if I were one, and a player had a dispute, if I could find any evidence of official clarity with a quick search (and there's plenty on this matter, at this point) I would dismiss that player's complaints.

I just don't see how you or anyone you play with benefits from saying "I disagree so I intend to dispute it."

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

If the designer wants to say otherwise, thats their right.

Well, yes, it is, since he made the game and creates the revisions to the RRG.

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

i would hope that if i played in an event the players wouldnt be jerks like you guys are being.

I don't see anyone being a jerk. We have shared with you what the designer has said is the correct way to play. You have the option to ignore that information and play with your friends however you agree to play. However, you have instead posted in this thread multiple times trying to make rules arguments against the person who writes the rules. You are also the one who brought up resolving things in tournaments, when anyone assigned to represent FFG would be expected to uphold the rulings of the game's designer.

Saying that it doesn't matter what you think makes sense is not being a jerk, it is true of every tabletop game on the planet. Rules are not written according to what individuals think make sense, they are written for everyone to play the same way.

If you don't want to use this rule, there's no point in you writing argumentative Internet posts about it - just play games with your friends and don't use the rule. No one else will know or care what you do when you're having fun.

Personally, I don't think this ruling makes sense, and is abnormal to wargames that use 3D terrain. For X-wing and Armada, horizontal makes perfect sense, those games take place on a single plane. If any vertical surface were to be treated as impassible to infantry and vehicles in Legion, horizontal only measurements would also make some amount of sense. Whether or not I agree with the ruling is a separate matter, thus far every email response from FFG has made its way into the RRG, and been treated as gospel by well read tournament organizers (TO). So my local group has adopted this method of measuring range.

Heck, I'm planning on checking with the TO at the tournament I'm going to on Saturday to see if they are using the ruling from Alex Davy/Adepticon or if they are using direct measurements. Not so I can argue with them, but so I can avoid any misunderstandings and play with the version of the rules the TO is going to enforce. If they do say we are using horizontal measurements, I will ensure my opponents are made aware by me, or suggest the TO make it clear to everyone prior to "Dice up."

9 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Personally, I don't think this ruling makes sense, and is abnormal to wargames that use 3D terrain. For X-wing and Armada, horizontal makes perfect sense, those games take place on a single plane. If any vertical surface were to be treated as impassible to infantry and vehicles in Legion, horizontal only measurements would also make some amount of sense. Whether or not I agree with the ruling is a separate matter, thus far every email response from FFG has made its way into the RRG, and been treated as gospel by well read tournament organizers (TO). So my local group has adopted this method of measuring range.

Heck, I'm planning on checking with the TO at the tournament I'm going to on Saturday to see if they are using the ruling from Alex Davy/Adepticon or if they are using direct measurements. Not so I can argue with them, but so I can avoid any misunderstandings and play with the version of the rules the TO is going to enforce. If they do say we are using horizontal measurements, I will ensure my opponents are made aware by me, or suggest the TO make it clear to everyone prior to "Dice up."

I agree 100%, you state your case much better than i did.

10 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Personally, I don't think this ruling makes sense, and is abnormal to wargames that use 3D terrain. For X-wing and Armada, horizontal makes perfect sense, those games take place on a single plane.

I agree with everything you said about checking understanding with the TOs and other players!!

Personally I find the 2D projection rule to be 'less accurate' (not meaningfully) but 'fast and easy' and so I'm willing to chalk it up as a Legion 'innovation' and not a 'Legion is abnormal and bad'.

14 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

I agree with everything you said about checking understanding with the TOs and other players!!

Personally I find the 2D projection rule to be 'less accurate' (not meaningfully) but 'fast and easy' and so I'm willing to chalk it up as a Legion 'innovation' and not a 'Legion is abnormal and bad'.

Having been on the "wrong" side of a few misunderstandings in other games regarding terrain blocking LoS or not (I interpreted it as not blocking LoS, my opponent thought it did, we forgot to agree prior to the game's start, so some of my deployments were less than optimal after we rolled off), I make it a point to make sure all players have the same understanding of any questionable rules or terrain. even more so with TOs. After all, once bitten, twice shy!

I agree that "abnormal" might have been a bit more negative than I intended, "atypical" is probably a better descriptor, followed by "unintuitive" especially since the rules say to touch the initial model's base. Admittedly, it does not say to try to touch the other mini's base, but with 3D terrain on the board, pointing along the table is difficult.

34 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I agree that "abnormal" might have been a bit more negative than I intended, "atypical" is probably a better descriptor, followed by "unintuitive" especially since the rules say to touch the initial model's base. Admittedly, it does not say to try to touch the other mini's base, but with 3D terrain on the board, pointing along the table is difficult.

Hahaha! For sure...

I mean I think I'm probably the biggest apologist/evangelist for the system but I could never claim it's "intuitive"!

Page 43 under range bullet point 2

It states further "if the base of the mini being MEASURED TO touches the raised line between two range ruler sements without crossing it, the mini is at the lower range segment that the line separates."

This confrims page 14 under attack action declare defender:

"The attacking player measures range from the attacker's unit leader to the closest miniature of the defender to determine the attacks range."

So, the email directly contradicts the rrg in multiple places. Theres no arguement here, its crystal clear.

How do we know that email is not a fake? It goes against multiple references in the rrg.

You can sit there and say i am being difficult all you want but this ruling does not hold water.

FYI I have my own email into alex about this

I have now talk with several of the event organizers in my area. They are all saying the same thing:

Range is distance from attackers unit leader to closest defending unit mini, actual distance NOT horizontal distance only. This is support in both the attack action and range entries in the RRG.

All of them said an supposed email from Alex does not override this.

All of them said that the event marshal's ruling is final and that arguing with the event marshal is grounds for you being removed from the event as well as possibly ban from events and that FFG supports this fully.

I strongly recommend that you clarify ahead of time with the individual event marshal any rulings that might be in question.

Unsportsman like conduct in any FFG event is unacceptable