Jump to content



Photo

using range rulers to place asteroids in a specific spot


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 rowdyoctopus

rowdyoctopus

    Member

  • Members
  • 473 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:27 PM

How did this suddenly evolve into a curious supposition that I play entirely randomly?

 

To let this continue to be getting close to personal here... yes, I have an excellent sense of spatial awareness. I can generally know, all up in my brain case, where any given maneuver is going to have any given ship end up.

 

I wasn't responding to you.  I was responding to the guy that said you must place asteroids randomly since you cannot measure them.  My question to him was whether his maneuvers are random or not since he cannot measure them before deciding.



#22 Galactic Funk

Galactic Funk

    Member

  • Members
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:28 PM

Measuring is one of the things FFG has been maddeningly inconsistent on.  By all the evidence we have, they've decided that prior to the first Planning Phase, you can do pretty much anything you want with templates and measuring regardless of whether that would be legal once the game starts or not.
 
I don't especially like it, but I think it's a stretch to call it cheating given the preponderance of evidence.


I guess I see whipping out the range ruler to check multiple target lock options to be quite a different thing than when using the range ruler to be methodical with asteroid placement.

#23 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,225 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:31 PM

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating.  For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model.  If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.

 

So X-wing's more lackadaisical approach to measuring feels off to a lot of experienced minis gamers.  To that background, statements like "Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3." are flat-out cheating.  You can indeed control your ruler so that you don't "accidentally" measure more than you should.

 

And again, it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if they were consistent.  We still don't have tight rules that cover the timing on measuring, action declaration, and takebacks (for example, we all know you can undo a TL if the target isn't in range, but what if I declare Squad Leader and the recipient has no TL targets in range, and has already Focused?).  The fact that actions that would be absolutely incontrovertibly cheating once the first planning phase begins are perfectly fine a few seconds before that is also strange.

 

So agree or not, there's plenty of reason for the "why".


  • Old Guy and Dm1012 like this

#24 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,225 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:35 PM

 

I guess I see whipping out the range ruler to check multiple target lock options to be quite a different thing than when using the range ruler to be methodical with asteroid placement.

 

It comes down to a minimalist interpretation of what you can measure.  You have to know whether the rock is within Range 1-2 of the edge, or whether it's within range 1 of another rock.  Any measurement should provide the minimal amount of information necessary to perform that verification.

 

The fact that you are measuring to see if an asteroid is within Range 2 of an edge shouldn't mean that you can measure anything you want concerning that asteroid.

 

But it seems that there's no limit on it, hence the inconsistency.


  • Old Guy likes this

#25 Galactic Funk

Galactic Funk

    Member

  • Members
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:41 PM

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating.  For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model.  If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.
 
So X-wing's more lackadaisical approach to measuring feels off to a lot of experienced minis gamers.  To that background, statements like "Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3." are flat-out cheating.  You can indeed control your ruler so that you don't "accidentally" measure more than you should.
 
And again, it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if they were consistent.  We still don't have tight rules that cover the timing on measuring, action declaration, and takebacks (for example, we all know you can undo a TL if the target isn't in range, but what if I declare Squad Leader and the recipient has no TL targets in range, and has already Focused?).  The fact that actions that would be absolutely incontrovertibly cheating once the first planning phase begins are perfectly fine a few seconds before that is also strange.
 
So agree or not, there's plenty of reason for the "why".

Thank you. That helps give some interesting perspective.

That being said I guess I see this issue as being very much the same as using your full range 3 ruler to precisely space a couple of your ships apart. Now while I have never done that the rules expressly support it.

Frankly I'm still stunned that this topic went this direction.

#26 Deltmi

Deltmi

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:51 PM

 

 

I would be of the mind that the *only* use of the range ruler would be to check the distance to meet the Distance 2 from the edge and the Distance 1 from any other asteriod. To do anything else is really bordering on cheating, or at least an *extremely* open interpretation of the rules to me.

So I guess you don't plan out your overall strategy, and just randomly place your asteroids? 

 

No.  That isn't what he said at all.  He is simply saying you cannot use the measuring device to know 100% without a doubt that you are placing that asteroid exactly where it is most strategically beneficial to you.

 

Do you not try to approximate in your mind where your maneuvers are going to put your various ships?  You cannot put maneuvers on the board during the planning phase, but that doesn't mean you just randomly select maneuvers, does it?

 

Moving on...


Rebel Alliance: 5 [X-Wing], 2 [Y-Wing], 2 [A-Wing], 3 [B-Wing], 2 [HWK-290], 1 [YT-1300], 1 [GR75 Transport], 1 [CR90 Corvette], 4 [Z-95], 2 [E-Wing]

 

Empire: 8 [Tie Fighter], 3 [Tie Advanced], 3 [Tie Interceptor], 3 [Tie Bomber], 1 [Firespray-31], 1 [Lambda Shuttle], 1 [Imperial Aces], 2 [Tie Phantom], 2 [Tie Defender]


#27 XAQT78

XAQT78

    Member

  • Members
  • 126 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:53 PM

If people stop swinging their **** opinion around and EFFIN read the rules:

 

Custom “setup” templates designed to aid players in ship deployment are not allowed.
 
However, players may use their range rulers and maneuver templates to help them set up formations during deployment. 
 
So, STFU and don't start flame war!  
 
As this applies to ships, there is nothing regards to asteroids.  Hence the guy who mention the world player.  
 
To place a ship, its owner lays the range ruler straight out from his edge of the play area and places the ship anywhere that is entirely within the Range 1 section, facing any direction (see setup diagram on page 5).

 

 


Edited by XAQT78, 14 May 2014 - 12:57 PM.

  • stegocent and Deltmi like this

Moving to New Hampshire this week, can't wait to start collecting & battling!

 

Prequel Consistencies and Contradictions


#28 eagle1361

eagle1361

    Member

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:59 PM

 

I am however a bit dumbfounded that you find these rather innocuous examples to be cases of cheating.

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating.  For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model.  If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.

 

So X-wing's more lackadaisical approach to measuring feels off to a lot of experienced minis gamers.  To that background, statements like "Not our fault that the ruler reaches out to R3." are flat-out cheating.  You can indeed control your ruler so that you don't "accidentally" measure more than you should.

 

And again, it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if they were consistent.  We still don't have tight rules that cover the timing on measuring, action declaration, and takebacks (for example, we all know you can undo a TL if the target isn't in range, but what if I declare Squad Leader and the recipient has no TL targets in range, and has already Focused?).  The fact that actions that would be absolutely incontrovertibly cheating once the first planning phase begins are perfectly fine a few seconds before that is also strange.

 

So agree or not, there's plenty of reason for the "why".

 

perspective is key. As x-wing is my first tabletop miniatures game, I do not have the experience with the strict measuring limitations many other tabletop games have and therefore was unaware how this type of debate can appear to others. Thanks for sharing.



#29 Forgottenlore

Forgottenlore

    Midnight Dreary

  • Members
  • 2,312 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:00 PM

For gamers coming from other wargames, any form of unapproved measuring is outright cheating.  For example, if you have too much measuring tape out, or you're using a ruler, it's expected that you leave the extra behind your model.  If I'm moving 4" but my ruler measures 12", and I happen to put the full 12" ahead of my model, that's cheating.


Not in any war game I've ever played or seen played. About 10 years of 40k.
  • Shanturin likes this

Thanks, Troy

 

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary....


#30 Galactic Funk

Galactic Funk

    Member

  • Members
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:01 PM

So am I in the minority on this? I didn't ever really give it much thought to be honest. As it stands I've only done it a couple times that I can recall.

#31 sirhc

sirhc

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:02 PM

I would argue that the player who invests too much time measuring distances between and to asteroids during set up is wasting a lot of their game time. This puts them at a disadvantage. I say measure away and waste time, I've already done my astroid pre-measurement in the privacy of my own home. Non-issue until FF officially rules, in my opinion.
  • Slugrage likes this

#32 Klutz

Klutz

    Member

  • Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:05 PM

Also, keep in mind that 5 range is MUCH longer than the 5 forward movement template.  The 5 forward template is about as long as range 2.5.

 

The 5 forward template is exactly as long as range 2.


Edited by Klutz, 14 May 2014 - 01:05 PM.


#33 akodo1

akodo1

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:06 PM

all this measuring beforehand to get a slight edge, especially measuring with a ship base plus 5 forward stick makes me think...

 

Is it legal to use a playmat where certain color stars are strategically placed to make 'eyeball measuring' easier?   Like a small bluish star at 1 inch intervals, and then a bunch of other stars splattered on so the pattern is hard for the opponent to notice?

 

Then you keep a little 4 inch by 4 inch grid right next to your cards and tokens, plus a spare base.  You can look at your ship and then place base and move template on your little grid to get an exact read on where your ship will end up.

 

I hope not, but that almost seems the direction people are going.


  • Radzap likes this

#34 Slugrage

Slugrage

    Member

  • Members
  • 840 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:09 PM

Akodo1, that's probably the reasoning behind FFG making the ruling that players should not be using their own play mats at tournament settings. Randomize those suckers up!


Core: 3 sets

Rebel: 1 X, 3 Y, 3 A, 2 B, 2 H, 2 YT-1300, 2 E, 4 Z, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75, 2 Reb Aces, 1 YT-2400

Imperial: 2 T, 3 T/Ad, 4 T/Int, 2 T/Bmb, 2 T/Df, 2T/Ph, 2 Shuttle, 2 Firespray, 2 Imp Aces, 1 VT-49


#35 sirhc

sirhc

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:09 PM

all this measuring beforehand to get a slight edge, especially measuring with a ship base plus 5 forward stick makes me think...
 
Is it legal to use a playmat where certain color stars are strategically placed to make 'eyeball measuring' easier?   Like a small bluish star at 1 inch intervals, and then a bunch of other stars splattered on so the pattern is hard for the opponent to notice?
 
Then you keep a little 4 inch by 4 inch grid right next to your cards and tokens, plus a spare base.  You can look at your ship and then place base and move template on your little grid to get an exact read on where your ship will end up.
 
I hope not, but that almost seems the direction people are going.


Capital ideal! Time to start diagramming my deathstar play mat, it's almost a grid to begin with!

#36 cody campbell

cody campbell

    Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:30 PM

I think it's fine for asteroids.  If you see your opponent placing them in a certain pattern (for instance, just beyond a 5 straight as previously mentioned) use it to your advantage and place an asteroid at the 2.5/3 straight and make him fly over it.  

 

I prefer to randomize as best I can, but I don't see anyone getting such a distinct advantage by allowing it.  



#37 Radzap

Radzap

    Member

  • Members
  • 284 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:34 PM

all this measuring beforehand to get a slight edge, especially measuring with a ship base plus 5 forward stick makes me think...

 

Is it legal to use a playmat where certain color stars are strategically placed to make 'eyeball measuring' easier?   Like a small bluish star at 1 inch intervals, and then a bunch of other stars splattered on so the pattern is hard for the opponent to notice?

 

Then you keep a little 4 inch by 4 inch grid right next to your cards and tokens, plus a spare base.  You can look at your ship and then place base and move template on your little grid to get an exact read on where your ship will end up.

 

I hope not, but that almost seems the direction people are going.

Something akin to marking cards in poker? It's probably already been done! I would further iterate this idea to make the shades of the stars in hues of red and green so as to deny any colorblind opponent the same advantage! Now that would be seriously sinister!!!


Imperial Ships:  5 Tie Fighters -- 5 Tie Interceptors -- 1 Tie Advanced -- 5 Tie Bomber -- 2 Firespray-31 -- 1 Lamba-Class Shuttle --   2 Defenders -- 1 Phantom

Rebel Scum: 3 X-Wing Fighters -- 1 Y-Wing Fighter -- 1 B-Wing Fighter -- 1 A-Wing Fighter -- 1 HWK-290 -- 1 YT-1300


#38 akodo1

akodo1

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:44 PM

 

all this measuring beforehand to get a slight edge, especially measuring with a ship base plus 5 forward stick makes me think...

 

Is it legal to use a playmat where certain color stars are strategically placed to make 'eyeball measuring' easier?   Like a small bluish star at 1 inch intervals, and then a bunch of other stars splattered on so the pattern is hard for the opponent to notice?

 

Then you keep a little 4 inch by 4 inch grid right next to your cards and tokens, plus a spare base.  You can look at your ship and then place base and move template on your little grid to get an exact read on where your ship will end up.

 

I hope not, but that almost seems the direction people are going.

Something akin to marking cards in poker? It's probably already been done! I would further iterate this idea to make the shades of the stars in hues of red and green so as to deny any colorblind opponent the same advantage! Now that would be seriously sinister!!!

 

Yes, it's all about taking extra advantage of the colorblind!



#39 Galactic Funk

Galactic Funk

    Member

  • Members
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:58 PM

Here is a FFG article written by X-Wing champion Paul Heaver discussing systematic asteroid placement:

http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=4709

In this article there are diagrams that show asteroid placement strategies that go beyond determining range 1 to another asteroid. It also references placing asteroids at range 3-4 of an edge. While none of these examples discuss using the range ruler, isn't it implied?
  • stegocent likes this

#40 Crabbok

Crabbok

    The Doctor

  • Members
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 14 May 2014 - 02:00 PM

If you use your range finder to measure asteroids, then you are cheating.  

 

   Basically, you are supposed to just place them by hand... then I can go back and measure and if you were accidentally too close to another asteroid, then you forfeit the game and I win.   I've won so many games this way!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS