Some of it contradicts itself.

Page 3 the rules for When can I measure vs Page 8 about how to lock etc are very different but in the same document. It shouldnt really have two ways to play the game and just decide on one or the other. Bit of a GW thing to do right there. Sorry FFG, just needs a bit of tidying here n there with the older rulings.

Page 3 the rules for When can I measure vs Page 8 about how to lock etc are very different but in the same document.

You mean the part on page 8 under the Competitive Play Addendum? The part of the rules that are meant to be a bit more strict on timing, and other issues for Tournaments?

Yup that part. I would like to consider that casual players still want to play with the same depth and rulings.

But that's not what it says.. it says this is the way you should play... If your opponent is being a C*$k Weasel, you may invoke these rules to stop him arsing around.

But you really should never play the Competitive Play Addendum unless your opponent is being a pain checking everything 5 times and slowing the game down to a halt.

Yup that part. I would like to consider that casual players still want to play with the same depth and rulings.

It's not contradicting anything. the CPA is designed to be a advanced rule set that anyone can use if they so wish. So you have 2 sets of rules, the normal rules and the more strict CPA rules.

I also fail how this can be seen as anything even remotely GW like... Unless they published the CPA rules and charged people $35 per copy.

Also the CPA doesn't add depth. It just makes everything more strict. I would prefer never to have to invoke it, I think two people can have a nice gentlemanly game even at tournament level, I don't want to win just because my opponent didn't do X and Y in quite the right order.

But you really should never play the Competitive Play Addendum unless your opponent is being a pain checking everything 5 times and slowing the game down to a halt.

That's not what it says at all.

However, if a player is concerned that his opponent is abusing the rules to gain an unfair advantage, he can request that his opponent follow the more strict action resolution described below

That is not limited to issues of stalling or checking too frequently. If you're abusing target locks to measure things you shouldn't be without ever taking the lock, this can apply. If you're moving your ship to barrel roll, measuring range on the new location and then backing it up because it turns out you didn't get out of range so you want to focus, this can apply.

It's a painfully vague descriptor, but that vagueness is left up to a given player to interpret and invoke, whether the free-measurement crowd likes it or not.

Also the CPA doesn't add depth. It just makes everything more strict. I would prefer never to have to invoke it, I think two people can have a nice gentlemanly game even at tournament level, I don't want to win just because my opponent didn't do X and Y in quite the right order.

This doesn't really make any sense at all.

Yes - it makes things more strict, doesn't add depth to the rules. That is precisely what it is intended to do - add the possibility for a more strict interpretation of the rules, if necessary, in a competitive setting.

You also don't have to invoke it. As was quoted about three times above the wording is " he can request ." If you're not concerned someone is abusing, or you think you can work it out with them like gentlemen, don't request . There's nothing saying you're forced to use it in any competitive saying - quite the opposite, in fact. It's a last resort.

Nothing in there says if your opponent gets the steps of modifying a dice roll wrong, and the attacker was supposed to modify the result last, and he messed up and tried to modify last as the defender, you are legally and morally obligated to slap him with the CPA and put him in his place.

You can, in fact, just explain that he's doing it wrong, and explain the proper method.

Also the CPA doesn't add depth. It just makes everything more strict. I would prefer never to have to invoke it, I think two people can have a nice gentlemanly game even at tournament level, I don't want to win just because my opponent didn't do X and Y in quite the right order.

This doesn't really make any sense at all.

Yes - it makes things more strict, doesn't add depth to the rules. That is precisely what it is intended to do - add the possibility for a more strict interpretation of the rules, if necessary, in a competitive setting.

You also don't have to invoke it. As was quoted about three times above the wording is " he can request ." If you're not concerned someone is abusing, or you think you can work it out with them like gentlemen, don't request . There's nothing saying you're forced to use it in any competitive saying - quite the opposite, in fact. It's a last resort.

Nothing in there says if your opponent gets the steps of modifying a dice roll wrong, and the attacker was supposed to modify the result last, and he messed up and tried to modify last as the defender, you are legally and morally obligated to slap him with the CPA and put him in his place.

You can, in fact, just explain that he's doing it wrong, and explain the proper method.

Er.. I think there was confusion, that's exactly what I meant..

The OP suggested the CPA added depth, and it really doesn't... it's just a more strict interpretation which you can invoke if you believe the opponent is taking the piss.