Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KommanderKeldoth

Abusing checking for Target Locks?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

And this is why the rules should just let people measure ranges.

Any idea what the thinking is with not allowing measuring in the first place?

 

Goes down to earlier table top games that had rules and mechanics where you had to guess the range in order to use certain weapons. There is a certain elitist misconception the it takes more skill and banning premeasuring allows better players to win more games instead of being at the mercy of the dice.

 

IMHO the way the flight path system is set up that is sort of belief is nonsense. With cannons becoming more prevalent and how maneuvers are selected by dials moving the ships has more effect than measuring ranges. It is impossible to premeasure a move. So the gripes about premeasuring in X-wing is just something that people need to understand that it is a part of this game and NOT the games that they were used to be playing before they moved over to this one.

 

 

There are a few good reasons not to allow pre-measurements. First, it would slow the game down considerably during competitive play, as some players would no doubt check every possible template and range. This would confer a considerable disadvantage to some lists and players; the measurements just take less time with fewer ships.

 

 

It would also reduce the skill ceiling of the game, which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but probably is not a net-positive. For example:

 

 

Think about how a pre-measured match here would change the dynamic of what you see. Would Heaver's clutch maneuver through the asteroids have been nearly as impressive? Would that gambit have even taken place if both he and his opponent had perfect information about what ships could fly where? 

 

the game would probably not lose it's entertainment value, but it would be a much different - and much slower - experience. 

 

As I mentioned the "lower the skill ceiling"  although you immediately negated that argument in the name of inclusivity.

 

So lets go to the time and pace argument. Still I would like to point out that premeasuring in the combat phase is allowed for the active ship to all available targets and in a competitive match you should measure to every possible ship before you declare an attack to make sure you never miss an opportunity you would never knew you had which may cost you the match.

 

So lets go on the the time taken argument. I have observed it takes longer for players to estimate the range then it does to measure the range. If the match is on a pinpoint people take longer time to weigh their decisions before they commit to it. Even top level competitive players will take more time to make decisions if the stakes are high and not having tools means that analyzing those decisions takes longer.

 

Now I agree there should be certain times when premeasuring is allowed and other times when it should not be allowed. Also I will admit declaring a target lock an an academy pilot on the other side of the table when whisper is half the distance away is gamey as the fortress deployments and questionable at best. Still it isn't against the rules and as I said before information is more of a two way street with this game. Unlike other games where you move take action and shoot before your opponent could respond as they had to wait their turn the pilot skill system and other things make it so that such loopholes don't offer too much of an advantage. I and many others don't see this as a game changing advantage that breaks the balance for now. 

Edited by Marinealver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The permission to measure for obtaining a target lock exists solely to facilitate obtaining a target lock. Most of the time, it should take less than a second to perform this measurement. Obtaining any other information from a target lick is incidential and is outside the contemplation of this limited permission to break the general prohibition against measuring whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it.

Attempting to glean additional information, particularly by taking time to perform unnecessary measurements or measurements that are more precise than is necessary is unsportsmanlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a player feel bad for taking his time with a TL measure and possibly gaining information from it is unsportsmanlike, especially when you embarrass that player and force him to measure out that it is 8 range bands away and clearly not within range, even if he performs the TL measure within the rules of the game. I don't mean to be mean, but that just doesn't seem very nice to me! :P

I get why the measuring can cause concern,, but we have to separate the "facts" in the rules from the "opinions" we have about them. We also shouldn't make players feel bad by pressing these "opinions" on them, without some stance from FFG to back it up. I get that there is an Unsportsmanship clause, but we shouldn't reference it just because we don't like something that is within the rules.

However, if you do feel this should be changed in the rules, you should send in a request to FFG. This should be done before using your "preferred" ruling too much. I know TOs have some control over these issues at tourneys, but every time they come across an issue, they probably should send in a support ticket to FFG.

On the same topic, what about using the measuring for Attack to gain information, especially on ships that are more than likely out of range?

Let's say, we are Range 3 to a bunch of ships, and there is clearly a range 5 ship on your flank. Do you have a problem with people measuring to that ship?

You can still get information from that measurement, like a rough estimate that the flanking ship is 1 range ruler(7.5 movement templates) + around 5 movement templates away, meaning you know about how far you need to move to keep that ship from shooting you next round.

Do we have the same opinions about this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately, I myself tend to watch when my opponent measures distances from his ships to mine so I can get a good idea of where my high PS pilots need to be. is that cheating or being un-sportsman like?

 

this can go both ways if you pay attention to what is going on, on the table.

 

but I can honestly say I would never call a target lock on anything that is obviously out of my range to gain extra knowledge, and I have never seen that myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that, per the rules, is illegal.

But the same can be said anytime you measure anything, unless I completely misunderstood your point.

If theres' 2+ ships in formation and I measure to one of them during an attack, I know the range to the other one. So if your whole point is, that this is illegal, because it provides you information about other ships on the board... Then anytime you measure anything then that could be considered illegal.

I'm not saying I support this tactic. But as I read your post, the reason you say this is against the rules is logically flawed.

Because again, if gaining information about other ships makes it illegal, then that's true anytime you measure anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still think that it's far fetched to accuse someone of bad sportsmanship when someone is playing according to the rules of the game. Because whether this is abusing or not is very arguable.

 

Rule books cannot encompass every single possible scenario. This is why terms like 'etc' are included under poor sportsmanship, and why judges or organizers are given the final say when it comes to ruling in favor of or against player behavior.

 

 

The rules implicitly prohibit pre-measurement while attempting to accommodate errors in eyeballing distances rather than punishing those errors with lost action economy. It seems like rules lawyering to me to say, "Well, ignore the whole context of these rules as presented; it says I can measure for a target lock and does not impose a penalty if I check for one from across the table, so clearly this fits within the scope of the game's mechanics," 

 

That said, I'm happy enough when someone does something like this. It just means I know who to avoid playing with (in my experience, someone who does that sort of thing will do all sorts of other things to 'gain an edge' in whatever game they're involved in that tends to transform the experience from play to debate over rules edge cases). 

 

 

this seems like over-reaching

 

the rules have a very clearly defined process when it comes to measuring target-locks, and if it was "abusive" to use it to check ranges then FFG would have made failure more punishing. It was and still is 100% in their ability to do so. They've had years to do it.

 

And honestly, the rules of the game keep this from being liberally abused. Unless you're a turret, it is incredibly unlikely that you can get an early range 3 shot without being shot at in return.

 

 

If anyone is still set in their ways about thinking that utilizing a rule as written is "abuse" then whatever, it is your choice. If you cause a stir about it on the table, though, then you're going to have a hell of a time finding folks to play with. You won't have it as bad as those players that actually abuse target-lock by sweeping it around like a **** sonar, but it won't be easy either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would all go away if they just let players check range at any time.

 

It wouldn't be game breaking if they both players do it.

 

It also wouldn't be against the lore considering the pilots probably have sensors to tell them whether they are in range or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is allowed to measure to the ship even if it is "clearly" (a subjective term, it may not be "clear" to many) out of range. If he uses this opportunity to measure other things that are not the other ship or not on the same line as the ship, then it is cheating.

 

Note that this does not prevent him from gaining knowledge that does not break those rules though.  If I measure from Ship X to Ship A and Ship B happens to be in between/nearby the two, then there's nothing you can realistically do about it. Some will view this as underhanded, but the rules compel you to measure and nothing prohibits him trying targets that are "obviously" (another subjective term) outside Range 3.  

 

The issue is that the rules support and compel you to measure in this case, regardless of what is "obvious".to any one person, the TO included. Obviously, if they then rotate the ruler around to gain unnecessary knowledge, then that IS cheating and should get a warning/DQ.

 

Hasn't this topic been raised several times now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would all go away if they just let players check range at any time.

 

It wouldn't be game breaking if they both players do it.

 

It also wouldn't be against the lore considering the pilots probably have sensors to tell them whether they are in range or not.

 

These are good points, but I do agree with those who believe it would take ages for some players to move if they were given free range (Heh) to check everything

 

Imo, the rules are 100% great as they are, or at least as they are clarified in the FAQ

 

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended
target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the
target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing
the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not
in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a
different action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This would all go away if they just let players check range at any time.

 

It wouldn't be game breaking if they both players do it.

 

It also wouldn't be against the lore considering the pilots probably have sensors to tell them whether they are in range or not.

 

These are good points, but I do agree with those who believe it would take ages for some players to move if they were given free range (Heh) to check everything

 

Imo, the rules are 100% great as they are, or at least as they are clarified in the FAQ

 

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended
target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the
target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing
the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not
in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a
different action.

 

 

Which is a complete 180 from what they say in the core rulebook.  At least in regards to committing to a target lock once you declare it and find yourself in range.

 

 

When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360° from the active ship. The active player may measure to see if an enemy ship is within range before committing to this action.

 

Maybe the slow-play problem is why they changed it in the tourney FAQ, but I think if we're being honest anyone who wants to slow play already has ample opportunity to abuse the planning phase in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, the rules are 100% great as they are, or at least as they are clarified in the FAQ

It's vital that when you quote the FAQ you make it clear when you're quoting the competitive rules section. The quote you posted is from that section, so it's only true when playing by the competitive rules.

 

Which is a complete 180 from what they say in the core rulebook.  At least in regards to committing to a target lock once you declare it and find yourself in range.

That's why I said what I did above. The quote from the FAQ is for competitive rules, not the standard rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imo, the rules are 100% great as they are, or at least as they are clarified in the FAQ

It's vital that when you quote the FAQ you make it clear when you're quoting the competitive rules section. The quote you posted is from that section, so it's only true when playing by the competitive rules.

 

Which is a complete 180 from what they say in the core rulebook.  At least in regards to committing to a target lock once you declare it and find yourself in range.

That's why I said what I did above. The quote from the FAQ is for competitive rules, not the standard rules.

 

 

Oh, I realize that.    I just think it's sloppy and, in this case, unnecessary to have parallel rulesets for casual and competitive play.

 

It's also a barrier for players attempting to make the transition from casual to competitive play.    That's worse, IMO, than a small opportunity for slow play getting added to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And that, per the rules, is illegal.

But the same can be said anytime you measure anything, unless I completely misunderstood your point.

If theres' 2+ ships in formation and I measure to one of them during an attack, I know the range to the other one. So if your whole point is, that this is illegal, because it provides you information about other ships on the board... Then anytime you measure anything then that could be considered illegal.

I'm not saying I support this tactic. But as I read your post, the reason you say this is against the rules is logically flawed.

Because again, if gaining information about other ships makes it illegal, then that's true anytime you measure anything.

 

You're right that it's a bit of a problem area.

 

IMHO the real key is incidental information vs. intentional abuse ("use", if you prefer) of the tactic.  If you're intentionally creating a situation where the only purpose is to generate incidental information, then that's against the rules.  The key is "incidental", and when you're pulling this bit of dishonesty out, it's no longer incidental information.

 

Edit: To clarify that a bit, the key is what information is generated.  After someone does this, is there any additional information on whether the target locked ship is in range?  No, everybody knew it was out of range before you declared it.  Is there other range information generated?  Yes.  The ONLY information gained relates to the range to other ships, which is explicitly prohibited by the rules.

 

To the people comparing it to combat checks: Combat checks explicitly allow you to measure range to any and all possible targets, so it's a very different thing.

Edited by Buhallin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

 

And that, per the rules, is illegal.


But the same can be said anytime you measure anything, unless I completely misunderstood your point.

If theres' 2+ ships in formation and I measure to one of them during an attack, I know the range to the other one. So if your whole point is, that this is illegal, because it provides you information about other ships on the board... Then anytime you measure anything then that could be considered illegal.

I'm not saying I support this tactic. But as I read your post, the reason you say this is against the rules is logically flawed.

Because again, if gaining information about other ships makes it illegal, then that's true anytime you measure anything.

 

You're right that it's a bit of a problem area.

 

IMHO the real key is incidental information vs. intentional abuse ("use", if you prefer) of the tactic.  If you're intentionally creating a situation where the only purpose is to generate incidental information, then that's against the rules.  The key is "incidental", and when you're pulling this bit of dishonesty out, it's no longer incidental information.

 

Edit: To clarify that a bit, the key is what information is generated.  After someone does this, is there any additional information on whether the target locked ship is in range?  No, everybody knew it was out of range before you declared it.  Is there other range information generated?  Yes.  The ONLY information gained relates to the range to other ships, which is explicitly prohibited by the rules.

 

To the people comparing it to combat checks: Combat checks explicitly allow you to measure range to any and all possible targets, so it's a very different thing.

 

To your edit:

How do we know it was out of range before i declared it. I am genuinely asking it because there is no way to be sure it was out of range before ,guess what; measuring it. This includes even from edge to edge situations, do tell me how do you know that to be out of range?

And to your second question

No it is not explicitly prohibited by the rules. You  say that and i have yet to see your evidence. Already at least twice you said this is wrong and just gave rule quotes which are surely not "explicitly" prohibiting this action if related at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do we know it was out of range before i declared it. I am genuinely asking it because there is no way to be sure it was out of range before ,guess what; measuring it. This includes even from edge to edge situations, do tell me how do you know that to be out of range?

 

The level of rank dishonesty in this comment is absolutely breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do we know it was out of range before i declared it. I am genuinely asking it because there is no way to be sure it was out of range before ,guess what; measuring it. This includes even from edge to edge situations, do tell me how do you know that to be out of range?

 

The level of rank dishonesty in this comment is absolutely breathtaking.

 

I am amazed that you are still trying to enforce a personal opinion as a fact. Also still waiting for that rule citation.

 

 

We know the dimensions of the play surface and the length of the range ruler. Thus we know definitively that ships edge to edge are absolutely not in range of each other.

Seriously in what universe do you think making the reference bolsters your argument at all?

 

This doesn't bolster my argument at all, it is more of an attempt to show how silly accidental knowledge argument is.

Also how do we know the dimensions of the board? If we had no knowledge of the board's size beforehand we would have to measure it or acquire the knowledge from someone who did. And if we know the dimensions of the board we got accidental information on the game which seems to be a big no-no to some people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am amazed that you are still trying to enforce a personal opinion as a fact. Also still waiting for that rule citation.

 

 

You've had one... in fact you've had several. Just because you disagree doesn't make the ruling invalid or non-existent

 

 

 

Also how do we know the dimensions of the board? If we had no knowledge of the board's size beforehand we would have to measure it or acquire the knowledge from someone who did. And if we know the dimensions of the board we got accidental information on the game which seems to be a big no-no to some people.

 

You know because the board is 36", as per the rules for standard tournament play (which we know is Range 9, as each range band is 4")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that it's a bit of a problem area.

I see what you're saying. Since all you can find out is that the ship is out of range, and it was clear that it was already out of range, the only information gained is about the range to other ships.

It's still a gray area though, and not really directly covered under the rules, but it really can't be.

Lets say you have a ship that is out of range but only just. No one at the table can say for sure if it is or isn't. So you measure it and it's out of range. The mere fact that you learn the range to another ship doesn't make doing that illegal. Again it can't because the rules can't account for border cases.

I don't think anyone would have an issue checking for TL in that case, and I know this isn't really about those borderline cases. But the rules don't say anything about not being able to check the range when a ship is clearly out of range. Really they can't because you're now getting into the realm of subjective measurement and rules just can not deal with things like that.

I'm not sure I agree the rules really prevent this kind of thing. There's nothing in the rules that say you can only measure "if you really think it might be in range" or "if both players agree it may be in range." There is also nothing the rules that say you can't measure if doing so gives you additional information about other ships on the table.

That said if I were a TO and someone asked about it and IMO the target ship was clearly out of range, but checking allowed you to check the range on other ships, I'd give that player a warning, because that is an issue of abusing the rules. But that's not the same thing as breaking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that, per the rules, is illegal.

But the same can be said anytime you measure anything, unless I completely misunderstood your point.

If theres' 2+ ships in formation and I measure to one of them during an attack, I know the range to the other one. So if your whole point is, that this is illegal, because it provides you information about other ships on the board... Then anytime you measure anything then that could be considered illegal.

I'm not saying I support this tactic. But as I read your post, the reason you say this is against the rules is logically flawed.

Because again, if gaining information about other ships makes it illegal, then that's true anytime you measure anything.

You're right that it's a bit of a problem area.

 

IMHO the real key is incidental information vs. intentional abuse ("use", if you prefer) of the tactic.  If you're intentionally creating a situation where the only purpose is to generate incidental information, then that's against the rules.  The key is "incidental", and when you're pulling this bit of dishonesty out, it's no longer incidental information.

 

Edit: To clarify that a bit, the key is what information is generated.  After someone does this, is there any additional information on whether the target locked ship is in range?  No, everybody knew it was out of range before you declared it.  Is there other range information generated?  Yes.  The ONLY information gained relates to the range to other ships, which is explicitly prohibited by the rules.

 

To the people comparing it to combat checks: Combat checks explicitly allow you to measure range to any and all possible targets, so it's a very different thing.

To your edit:

How do we know it was out of range before i declared it. I am genuinely asking it because there is no way to be sure it was out of range before ,guess what; measuring it. This includes even from edge to edge situations, do tell me how do you know that to be out of range?

because you should have better spacial awareness than an infant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it IS true. You can't KNOW the ship is out of range until you measure. You can only GUESS, albeit, you can guess with practiced accuracy and be correct in your guess. But it isn't a fact until that range ruler is put on the table.

What do you guys think about measuring for ATTACK range on a target that is "more than likely" out of range? Like after the first or second round of moving, you check to see if you have a shot. Though it may be "clear" that you are out of range, what if you want to check to make sure you don't miss out on an attack?

If you are out of range, you DO get some information, like how far to move to get into range 1.

Are our opinions as strong about this? Or only with taking the TL action?

I just know the game impact is much more detrimental if you miss an attack opportunity because you were too afraid to measure it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...