Range ruler touches both bases, but does it overlap?

[toxicwisdom 8]

wow all this just to measure range.I cant see what the issue is.  if the range ruler touches the base or overlaps the base then its in range, if it doesnt then the ship is out of range.  it cant get any more simple than that. if you cant agree with your opponent on this then roll a dice or dont play against him for being a podantic little S***.

"... for being a podantic little s*** ..."

Its those types of comments that are not relevant to a rules discussion. They do nothing more than flame those that support one side of the topic over the other = in this case 01 ) you are asking some of us to ignore the rules of overlap / under and play by your set of houserules that makes touching a valid target 02 ) then if we disagree to play by your houserules instead of RAW, we have to roll off for the outcome 03 ) and if that isn't good enough for you then we are podantic little s••••

How about this ?.. all other derail methods and name calling put aside, read the rulebook and find where exactly it states that when making a ranged attack, simply touching the target's base with the range ruler makes it a valid target ... it should be in the same paragraphs that reference overlap & under.

[Sekac 3,506]

Toxicwisdom, you are so close, you just need someone to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

 

I'm not arguing that IF we combine all 5 of those relevant paragraphs in the rules together as one super-rule then your conclusion is logically what would follow--no, I'm arguing that we SHOULDN'T think those are all one rule. Here's the issue:

 

Your conclusion will eventually lead to a scenario where you will have to measure differences in distance that are imperceptible to the human eye. You would need microscopes and micrometers to measure these distances, not pieces of carboard. And considering that it's ONLY possible to touch but not overlap if you are measuring with the red laser up, it seems highly unlikely that this was the intention of the rules.

 

This rulebook is 20 pages long, it's designed to play quickly and smoothly for a wide demographic, and you method does not cater to any of those ends. Also there is NO provision for deciding whether you are just in range or just out, so they clearly didn't even anticipate this debate even happening, which speaks to their intent even more.

 

THEREFORE

 

FFG MUST not have intended the rules to play out like you desperately (for whatever reason) want them to. I think it all boils down to this sentence right here:

 

"If the ruler is not long enough to reach the target ship, the ship is considered out of range and cannot be targeted."

 

You are read that and assume it is an additional targeting requirement. Do you not see that it is completely redundant to add that in? Or maybe you could explain how the base could be overlapped by the range ruler but not reached. There would be no point in including that sentence (especially to give it its own paragraph) if it served no function. But what if we phrase the statement this way:

 

"If the ruler is long enough to reach the target ship, the ship is considered in range and can be targeted."

 

This literally means the exact same thing as the first sentence but is phrased in the positive form, instead of the negative. If it was written that way, your whole argument falls apart.

 

Cons of your method:

-Cannot be determined with the tools provided

-Incredibly impractical

-Completely contrary to the intent of the game

-Requires assuming certain rules are redundant

-Is guaranteed to end up in an argument

 

Pros of your method:

-Ummm....

 

In short, your conclusion is logically sound but completely unreasonable. If you want to hold to that, feel free to ruin your opponent's day when that argument inevitably comes up. Meanwhile, I will have an enjoyable game that'll probably take less time than the argument you'll INSIST on creating.

 

Please, before you reply, re-read this whole post again. Thoroughly. You have misunderstood me many times and many ways. Regardless, this'll be my last post on this subject, as because if this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Sekac

[toxicwisdom 8]

Why are we talking about red lasers ?

From the FAQs...

Q: When measuring with the range ruler, does the entire width of the ruler matter ?

A: No. Players should use a single edge of the range ruler when measuring. Also, the width of the ruler does not matter when determining if an obstacle obstructs an attack.

[winterdyne 242]

I hate to say it, but any reasonable person in the situation where the range ruler fits PRECISELY (though how you could physically put it there is beyond me) into the gap between ship bases is probably just going to say 'yeah mate, range 3'.

What you are discussing is so unsporting as to be reprehensible. Certainly at our place making this sort of argument, you'd be wearing the 'My name is... And I am a cock' badge, which we reserve only for the most obnoxious rules-lawyering. Or perhaps the very sweaty 'mask of evil'.

[mrgoodtrips 20]

Toxicwisdom you make a lot of asumptions based upon my comment. The comment was not aimed at anyone particulary but to put the point across that this is a game, there are things that are missed in the rules and there are things that are in the faq, no game is perfect and there are a lot of games out there with more rules isssues than this.  My point being that a game is a contract between players to have fun and if something like this comes up it doesnt seem like it would be fun disagreeing with an opponent whther a mm difference is a hit or a miss, use good judgement, the same could be applied to ship movement as ships get knocked or when a ship is moved through another there are going to be slight inacuracy's in movement so i dont think it matters too much.  As to your inference of house rules, please read my statement again as am unaware as to when i mentioned that people were to use house rules in games. I think that thes sort of rules discussions are helpfull in raising and adressing issues in the game and these types of comment ARE valid on forums, i just like to see people enjoy games, so please dont take things personally from comments posted, as there was no malice intended.

[Sekac 3,506]

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/faq/X-Wing-FAQ.pdf

 

4th page, 1st column. "At" vs. "Within"

 

1st sentence says it all. We good?

[Aminar 1,949]

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/faq/X-Wing-FAQ.pdf

 

4th page, 1st column. "At" vs. "Within"

 

1st sentence says it all. We good?

That doesn't answer the question.

[Sekac 3,506]

"“At” means the closest part of the target’s base touches that range section."

 

Yes. It very specifically answers the question. Is the closest part of the base touching range 3? Yes? Then it's a legal shot. It literally could not be more clear at this point.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

But to gain a target lock you have to be within range 8)

[Aminar 1,949]

But to gain a target lock you have to be within range 8)

I'll take it, but I don't think it really answers the question. What you're saying supports my guess as to how it works, but the ruling in question doesn't talk about touching the end of the ruller, making it pretty non-specific.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

But to gain a target lock you have to be within range 8)

I'll take it, but I don't think it really answers the question. What you're saying supports my guess as to how it works, but the ruling in question doesn't talk about touching the end of the ruller, making it pretty non-specific.

I was just being silly. The way they define "within" someone in this thread could argue means the TL target has to have ALL of their base "within" range.

I was making a joke about pedantism.

[toxicwisdom 8]

I hate to say it, but any reasonable person in the situation where the range ruler fits PRECISELY (though how you could physically put it there is beyond me) into the gap between ship bases is probably just going to say 'yeah mate, range 3'.

What you are discussing is so unsporting as to be reprehensible. Certainly at our place making this sort of argument, you'd be wearing the 'My name is... And I am a cock' badge, which we reserve only for the most obnoxious rules-lawyering. Or perhaps the very sweaty 'mask of evil'.

S o o o those of us.that play by the rules are evil-mask wearing c**** ?

[Sekac 3,506]

No, you're not evil. Just wrong.

[winterdyne 242]

 

I hate to say it, but any reasonable person in the situation where the range ruler fits PRECISELY (though how you could physically put it there is beyond me) into the gap between ship bases is probably just going to say 'yeah mate, range 3'.

What you are discussing is so unsporting as to be reprehensible. Certainly at our place making this sort of argument, you'd be wearing the 'My name is... And I am a cock' badge, which we reserve only for the most obnoxious rules-lawyering. Or perhaps the very sweaty 'mask of evil'.

S o o o those of us.that play by the rules are evil-mask wearing c**** ?

I would say unrealistic, unreasonable, and unsporting. The only people that could tolerate such extreme requirement for accuracy are other people who demand such extreme requirement for accuracy. I should point out even attempting to measure with the level of accuracy you're espousing is unrealistic for a physical game, and only truly approachable in a theoretical simulation where mathematical precision is possible.

So yeah, in our games shed, rather than having a long, drawn out theoretical argument, you'd end up being told to wear the cock badge or balaclava of evil.

 

Edit: The Balaclava of Evil is available in 'War or Terror, the boardgame', and yes, it gets very sweaty, very quickly.

Edited April 16, 2014 by winterdyne