The outside does actually have a color, I've done them in 3 sets of 4 TL pairs, with Green, Yellow and Blue edging, to make it easier to find a pair in game. Though I've changed over to using the blue and orange set we were trying out for Attack Wing, hopefully we will have them available as separate packs soon.

IMHO the extra markings on the maneuver templates are very problematic. They create a ruler which does not exist on the official templates, and can be used to measure illegally.

I may be overly picky on this, but I wouldn't allow these in my games or events.

It is fairly impossible to misuse them for a variety of reasons, first is the range increments are not the same as the maneuver increments, second is that the longer straight are only ever used in one phase, and by that point your maneuvers are locked in. It is far easier to use the bases of models on the board to guestimate maneuvers. In the same way you can't wave around a range ruler in the setting dial phase, it's fairly obvious if your waving around a maneuver template to measure ranges (also the marks don't match with ranges anyway ). Also unless you have invoked the Addendum to the rules, you can premeasure shots and TLs before declaring them, so there would be nothing to gain anyway.

The other thing to note is they are measurements you have anyway. the 3rd mark on the 5 in the same length as a 3, so your not gaining anything you didn't have before.

What it does however allow you to do is a few really useful tricks.. One is if you have a ship flying through a furball. You can use the markings to place a 5 (or 4) alongside your ship and then move it along the ruler, this allows you to perform a 3 (or 2) maneuver with ships in the way.

... the longer straight are only ever used in one phase, and by that point your maneuvers are locked in. It is far easier to use the bases of models on the board to guestimate maneuvers. In the same way you can't wave around a range ruler in the setting dial phase, ...

Exactly! Let's not create some sort of problem that simply doesn't exist.

Again, call me picky if you want, but the problem certainly does exist. The marks on the straight maneuver templates clearly measure every shorter maneuver, and there are any number of situations where that information can be abused. The fact that dials are set doesn't mean there's no advantage to the information - it can be used to accurately measure other ships movement for the next turn, or used for free action choices.

"The other thing to note is they are measurements you have anyway. the 3rd mark on the 5 in the same length as a 3, so your not gaining anything you didn't have before."

That they're the same is exactly the problem - it's providing a measurement from a template that you would otherwise be prohibited from placing on the board. If I declare a 5 ahead and put the 3 on the board first before taking it away and using the 5, would you allow that? Somehow I doubt it.

I also wonder... if someone showed up to an event with their normal maneuver templates marked with the move increments, what would the reaction be?

All that could just as well be done with the stock templates. In your movement phase simply hold a finger on your template where you want to do a measure and you got the exact range you want. Check what it comes close to when you place it back down next to your other templates.

If someone did that would it really be cheating? I would say that was fair game and a clever move from my opponent if it helped him jugde my next move better. ...And decent eyesight would probably beat that technique any day.

I would actually prefer to allow people to mark their templates all they want rather than to use hidden dents that show specific ranges or some other scheme. If I play up to my best all that wont help them

Honestly, it's fairly easy to judge distance, it isn't that tough, and clever tricks to judge distance isn't going to bother me... mainly because they have no idea what I'm doing next.. personally I feel your fear of misuse is unfounded and misguided... but we all have our issues with any aspect of this game, if asked not to use them I might ask for an explanation, and after some discussion I'm sure we could come to an agreement.. or if I had a standard game set just use them...

Third party products are nifty and cool, and some like them and some don't... and some just don't have the funds to get them.. what ever the reasons, I think every game should be friendly and fun, so we obviously need to communicate any issues before the game starts so everyone has a good time.

All that could just as well be done with the stock templates. In your movement phase simply hold a finger on your template where you want to do a measure and you got the exact range you want. Check what it comes close to when you place it back down next to your other templates.

If someone did that would it really be cheating?

Yes, actually, that would be cheating. If you're executing a 5 Ahead, that's the template you're allowed to use. You can't pick up a 3 Ahead instead and put it on the table just to see how it would have worked, or compare it to the ship next to the active one and see what's coming up. Is that really in dispute here? Because if it's not - if that's not allowed - then any alternative means of doing that, whether it's additional markings on the template or "clever" use of a finger, is cheating.

So a simple, direct question: If your opponent calls a 5 Ahead, and puts a 3 Ahead down first, do you think that's legal? If you do, then we're obviously just going to disagree. But if you're not OK with that, I'd be curious why using a different template would be unacceptable, but a single template marked to all the others is fine.

I would have to disagree as well. X-wing started out with a fast and loose rule set and I've never had a real issue with people taking back moves or just trying to figure out moves ahead of times. In this case, specifically I don't have a problem because everyone knows that the 1 maneuver can fit into a template a certain amount of times, that's common knowledge and just because there's a line on a template doesn't make that knowledge cheating. I also can't really think of an instance where this can really be abused because most players I know use the first ship's maneuver to help gauge future moves anyway and ultimately you still have to pull the template off the table and eyeball it for other ships. I can't shake the feeling that X-Wing, while great as a tournament game, was meant to be a little more light handed when it comes to the rules, especially when it comes to the fact the rulebook allowed you to premeasure everything except movement.

I actually have an issue with addendum for competitive play as well just for this reason because everyone has seemed to just adopt it and assumed that meant you can't premeasure actions and the like, which is actually against what's printed in the rulebook. The addendum says you can't do it if you "gain an unfair advantage." Is it really unfair if you are both allowed to do it? Forcing people to follow these rules "just because" is in its own way bending the rules.

The addendum says you can't do it if you "gain an unfair advantage." Is it really unfair if you are both allowed to do it? Forcing people to follow these rules "just because" is in its own way bending the rules.

That's not actually what the addendum says. What it says is this:

...if a player is concerned that his opponent is abusing the rules to gain an unfair advantage...

The "if a player is concerned" bit makes it a very different standard from what you're trying to claim. There doesn't have to be any actual unfairness, just a concern on the part of one player. There are no requirements that your opponent agree with your concern, or even that a TO agree with the concern, and there's no objective measure - honestly not even the slightest hint of a definition - for what qualifies "unfair advantage".

I think a lot of people have adopted it because it's just easier to play without people shuffling their ships around all over the place, trying to make sure you get back to the same spot on barrel rolls, or stressing over how your opponent is going to respond if you ask him to start using it in the middle of a tight game. Just start with it in the first place and a lot of the headache goes away.

I actually do wish FFG would tighten the CRA down and clean it up, but until they do it's basically at player discretion to invoke it whether an opponent agrees or not. Sadly for the shinies here, the same applies to measurement templates (just to get it back on topic). Per the tournament rules, if there are concerns over the templates being used both players must agree to a single set. It doesn't really matter whether you think they're fine or not - if your opponent objects, they're out.

The addendum also says "you may request" which means your opponent doesn't have to if we go by strict wording. Ultimately, the rules revolve around interpretation which means universal agreement will almost never be possible. I guess my major disagreement with your interpretation is how far the line has to be pushed to cover every possible outcome where you believe there would be some kind to advantage to be taken.

This also stands out as a highly theoretical case (that could be gained in other simple ways) and not something that has any practical advantage to a player.

The addendum also says "you may request" which means your opponent doesn't have to if we go by strict wording.

The tournament rules also say "you may request" to check your opponent's damage deck to ensure it has the cards it's supposed to have, and "you may request" to verify the scoring piles to confirm the number of points killed. Would you consider these things optional as well?

If you look at the way FFG uses "request" it's pretty clear that it's not an optional "Nah, I don't feel like doing that" sort of thing. And honestly, it being optional really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "I think you're abusing the rules, so I'm going to invoke the Competitive Rules Addendum." "Nah, request denied."

Ultimately, the rules revolve around interpretation which means universal agreement will almost never be possible. I guess my major disagreement with your interpretation is how far the line has to be pushed to cover every possible outcome where you believe there would be some kind to advantage to be taken.

Which is why I tend to just settle on the tighter action rules. If we start at that point, there's no potential for disagreement, no hurt feelings when you basically have to accuse your opponent of semi-cheating (sorta, maybe depending on what "unfair advantage" actually means). Using the stricter action handling completely removes the potential for "unfair advantage", whatever it may mean, and it certainly removes any level of subjective interpretation.

This also stands out as a highly theoretical case (that could be gained in other simple ways) and not something that has any practical advantage to a player.

You keep saying this. Either your eyes and depth perception are better than anyone I know, or you have a woeful lack of imagination in the potential for abusing this.

Please give a solid example of how to abuse this.

A ship moves to a potential blocking position in front of you B-wing with a 2 Ahead declared. Will it hit? Hard to tell. Another ship has a faster move, and the marks provide a solid guide that wouldn't exist otherwise, telling you if you need to barrel roll before the move or not.

I'm sure you won't consider that valid, of course, but it really doesn't matter. Again, thankfully, it's not really your choice. If someone objects to the use of the rulers, they win.

I have to say again that I'm surprised this is such a contentious issue. I've never seen anyone who would let you put a template down if it wasn't exactly what you were executing. Your environment is obviously very different than ours.

I never had a problem with the templates, no one has ever complained about them etc

Yep never had an issue and I've been to a few tournaments over here, I know a lot of tournament players that use them.. Hell some of the major tournament runners over in the UK have been giving them as prizes. The issue is in your head Buhallin it is really a total non-issue, as the tournament rules say you can request both players play with the same rulers, in which case both players get any perceived (I say perceived as it it almost impossible to get any advantage out it ) advantage, or use the other players set of rulers.

With the given scenario, if I eyeball my move and think I might bump or overlap.. I'd just AS the barrel roll.. without setting a movement srick.. I guess it is personal perspective, but I do find this , as Rodent stated, a non issue.. personally I feel if someone sucks so bad at the game they will resort to tricks to get an unfair advantage then soon they will find themselves lonely and with no one to game with.

Besides, your move planning is always a mystery, you have no idea where the other guy is moving, and has no idea where you are going.. no amount of cheating is going to change that.

Glad I only play with friends. One of the big reasons I don't bother with LGS's. Bring too much drama (as either a cheat OR as a rules lawyer) and you magically never get invited again.

This debate got quite heated and I don't want to go there again. I only want to add that the official tournament rules actually have a fine passage on how to deal with different movement templates (including stock templates that may be altered be normal wear and tear:

I hope that brings a solution to the debate

A ship moves to a potential blocking position in front of you B-wing with a 2 Ahead declared. Will it hit? Hard to tell. Another ship has a faster move, and the marks provide a solid guide that wouldn't exist otherwise, telling you if you need to barrel roll before the move or not.

I'm sure you won't consider that valid, of course, but it really doesn't matter. Again, thankfully, it's not really your choice. If someone objects to the use of the rulers, they win.

I have to say again that I'm surprised this is such a contentious issue. I've never seen anyone who would let you put a template down if it wasn't exactly what you were executing. Your environment is obviously very different than ours.

I'm assuming that in your tournaments you have an independent arbitrator that does all of the unit movement. It's not particularly difficult to "accidentally" nudge a piece little bits here and there, not to mention resolving bumping that can unfairly be taken advantage of. I mean, we should err on the strictest rule set possible so people can't cheat.

This is a game with a human element. The example used in order to really take advantage of another template would require both ships to be right next to each other and their corresponding moves to be fairly close. Even then at some point you'd still have to pick up the template and still eyeball any future maneuver, which still doesn't discount the fact that the base sizes of the ships themselves would be more useful to guessing distances in the example above since they are exactly the 1 template and stay on the table much closer to the ships.

I don't view it as a big deal because you should't make a rule set for the cheaters because they will always find a way to cheat. If you use the criteria that causes a problem for some people with these templates, you should also consider that X-Wing should be played on a black board since people could use the starfield to measure distances.

Hopefully, by wave 9, we will be playing games on an LCD monitor that randomly generates starfields no one can use it to their advantage.

Just a quick update, my tokens turned up today. Love em, they look great. Now i just need to spruce them up with a little paint!