Pre mesauring with Fingers?

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

...building a culture where it's okay to call the TO over even for "minor infractions".

And building that culture isn't going to happen if people take the stance that a TO/Judge's responsibility isn't pro-actively catching players violating rules during the games. Or if people act as if it isn't in the games interest to have others pointing out blatant rules violations like this.

Judges aren't going to catch everything, but they are there to catch things. Not just sit and look pretty, though I am great at that.

I'm not at all saying judges shouldn't be proactive--just that players bear a substantial amount of responsibility for acting on rules infractions, and we need to break players of the idea that calling a TO is a drastic action.

[VanorDM 11,599]

and we need to break players of the idea that calling a TO is a drastic action.

Calling over the TO shouldn't be the first option, but it also shouldn't be the final resort either.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

and we need to break players of the idea that calling a TO is a drastic action.

Calling over the TO shouldn't be the first option, but it also shouldn't be the final resort either.

No the final resort is a ball peen hammer, let's see them measure a bank with a finger splint.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

 

 

Haven't watched the video. But over head and just watching it is easier to see. While playing (Thinking of next moves, actions etc) and at the opposite angle of the cheater it could be hard to pick up. But if word was able to make it from any spectator on-line or in person and the judge ignored it and didn't bother to check. Well that should be addressed for future games.

Internet spectators should have zero impact on a match and judges have better things to do than walk around looking for minor infractions. If his opponent doesn't call him out on it everyone else should butt out.

During a round a Judge/TO has absolutely nothing better to do then ensure that players are following the rules and not cheating.That an opponent doesn't catch a player does not give them licence to cheat, and there absolutely needs to be more accountability then to just the opponents ability or willingness to catch it and call it out.

As things stand, it doesn't matter whether it's a minor infraction or a major one: if no one calls the TO over, then the TO is unlikely to see it. And that's especially true when you have a couple dozen tables and two or three judges. They don't have anything better to do, but that doesn't make them omniscient.So you're absolutely right that people shouldn't perceive that as a license to cheat (or even a licence). But realistically, the only alternatives to the kind of situation the OP poses seem to be either having a TO at every table or building a culture where it's okay to call the TO over even for "minor infractions".

And building that culture isn't going to happen if people take the stance that a TO/Judge's responsibility isn't pro-actively catching players violating rules during the games. Or if people act as if it isn't in the games interest to have others pointing out blatant rules violations like this.

Judges aren't going to catch everything, but they are there to catch things. Not just sit and look pretty, though I am great at that.

 

 

 

In my experience TOs aren't normally standing around watching matches acting as a line judge or referee for matches. They are off to the side doing whatever it is that TO's do during tournaments (most likely playing Doomtown or Dead of Winter) until someone needs them to make a ruling or has a question. 

 

Spectators need to butt out and spectate, especially if the TO is watching the game. I don't want someone interrupting my game because they don't like what my opponent is doing. They can feel free to contact the TO after the match to make sure that the TO understands the rules but during the game they shouldn't be undercutting the TO's authority. Especially with crap that isn't directly covered in the rules or the FAQ and is open to TO discretion, like touching the mat while deciding whether or not to boost.. 

[Tuls 215]

Shocked to see myself as the start of such conversation.

 

My thought is if someone tells a TO of a rules violation he should look into it and make a call. That call may be to determine its too minor to get involved is the players are fine with it. If he feels it is not minor then he should say something. There are players that will let you walk over them or just don't know their opponent is "cheating". I've seen in other games where a player will just bully a less experienced player or bend the rules. This is where a TO needs to step in and keep things fair.

[DraconPyrothayan 6,107]

 

 

and we need to break players of the idea that calling a TO is a drastic action.

Calling over the TO shouldn't be the first option, but it also shouldn't be the final resort either.

No the final resort is a ball peen hammer, let's see them measure a bank with a finger splint.

 

You've turned his finger into an unmoving template, thus making the job easier for him.

[Parravon 5,217]

I think a lot of players seem to think that calling the TO is a "last resort" or that if you do call the TO, you're effectively accusing your opponent of cheating. Some would feel this way, but if there's something my opponent is doing that I'm not sure about, I would have no problem calling the TO for a "clarification". If it turns out that the opponent is definitely cheating then, you can accuse him of such and let the TO impose the appropriate penalty. That's what they are there for.

 

It doesn't matter how major or minor the infraction or behaviour, it's still the player's prerogative to call a TO if they aren't sure and get the TO to decide. This is especially important for newer players competing in their first few tournaments. It's the best way to learn the rules and how they apply. Of course this is all assuming you have a TO that knows his stuff. 

 

And TOs also need to be proactive in a tournament, not just sitting playing something else waiting for a player to call them in if needed. I believe the term TO stands for "Tournament Organiser", not "There Occasionally".

[Hobojebus 11,341]

and we need to break players of the idea that calling a TO is a drastic action.

Calling over the TO shouldn't be the first option, but it also shouldn't be the final resort either.

No the final resort is a ball peen hammer, let's see them measure a bank with a finger splint.

You've turned his finger into an unmoving template, thus making the job easier for him.

Only for straights

[DanDoulogos 753]

Correcting myself, where I said,

I am glad that Alex Davy expounded the original intention in a way that made the intention of the design team clear (measuring with hands is a no-no).

Unfortunately, if the clarification mentioned in that off-hand (pun intended) email reply does not find its way into an FAQ or some other official document, I expect the matter be left to the discretion of the judge in charge of the tournament - who may or may not be as informed on this matter as those who have read this (or the other) thread.

 

Upon further reading, I became convinced that the matter isn't quite the foggy gray area I first imagined,
 

...players cannot use maneuver templates in order to “test” where ships will end up. Instead, they must plan their maneuvers by estimating their ships’ movement in their heads.

 
Even without the clarification given by Alex Davy, the Core Rules are clear (if implicit): you must plan your maneuvers by estimating your ship's movement in your head - that precludes all measuring devices (templates, range rulers, and body parts").

 

That being the case, anyone doing this is cheating, and any TO who suffers cheating (whether in ignorance or in compliance) ought not to be a Tournament Organizer.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Haven't watched the video. But over head and just watching it is easier to see. While playing (Thinking of next moves, actions etc) and at the opposite angle of the cheater it could be hard to pick up. But if word was able to make it from any spectator on-line or in person and the judge ignored it and didn't bother to check. Well that should be addressed for future games.

Internet spectators should have zero impact on a match and judges have better things to do than walk around looking for minor infractions. If his opponent doesn't call him out on it everyone else should butt out.

During a round a Judge/TO has absolutely nothing better to do then ensure that players are following the rules and not cheating.That an opponent doesn't catch a player does not give them licence to cheat, and there absolutely needs to be more accountability then to just the opponents ability or willingness to catch it and call it out.

As things stand, it doesn't matter whether it's a minor infraction or a major one: if no one calls the TO over, then the TO is unlikely to see it. And that's especially true when you have a couple dozen tables and two or three judges. They don't have anything better to do, but that doesn't make them omniscient.So you're absolutely right that people shouldn't perceive that as a license to cheat (or even a licence). But realistically, the only alternatives to the kind of situation the OP poses seem to be either having a TO at every table or building a culture where it's okay to call the TO over even for "minor infractions".

And building that culture isn't going to happen if people take the stance that a TO/Judge's responsibility isn't pro-actively catching players violating rules during the games. Or if people act as if it isn't in the games interest to have others pointing out blatant rules violations like this.

Judges aren't going to catch everything, but they are there to catch things. Not just sit and look pretty, though I am great at that.

In my experience TOs aren't normally standing around watching matches acting as a line judge or referee for matches. They are off to the side doing whatever it is that TO's do during tournaments (most likely playing Doomtown or Dead of Winter) until someone needs them to make a ruling or has a question.

Spectators need to butt out and spectate, especially if the TO is watching the game. I don't want someone interrupting my game because they don't like what my opponent is doing. They can feel free to contact the TO after the match to make sure that the TO understands the rules but during the game they shouldn't be undercutting the TO's authority. Especially with crap that isn't directly covered in the rules or the FAQ and is open to TO discretion, like touching the mat while deciding whether or not to boost..

I'm sorry your experience is with bad TOs. A TO should be up and watching games. Not just to catch things, but to make themselves accessible to the players. Otherwise people feel as if they are burdening the TO by calling for him, which means they won't do so, in instances that they really should.

And frankly, I feel, there is zero room in this case to act as if it isn't something covered by the base ruleset. The rules tell you that all 'pre-measuring" needs to be done via estimates in one's own head. That they explicitly cite not using templates doesn't somehow allow you to use other manners of pre-measuring. As with all things the rules tell you what you can do (estimate in your head) not all of the things you can't do, it would never be able to cover them all. The rules can't be approached in a manner that boils down to, well it doesn't say I can't do this, so therefore I can.

Edited May 29, 2015 by ScottieATF

[WWHSD 9,273]

Haven't watched the video. But over head and just watching it is easier to see. While playing (Thinking of next moves, actions etc) and at the opposite angle of the cheater it could be hard to pick up. But if word was able to make it from any spectator on-line or in person and the judge ignored it and didn't bother to check. Well that should be addressed for future games.

Internet spectators should have zero impact on a match and judges have better things to do than walk around looking for minor infractions. If his opponent doesn't call him out on it everyone else should butt out.

During a round a Judge/TO has absolutely nothing better to do then ensure that players are following the rules and not cheating.That an opponent doesn't catch a player does not give them licence to cheat, and there absolutely needs to be more accountability then to just the opponents ability or willingness to catch it and call it out.

As things stand, it doesn't matter whether it's a minor infraction or a major one: if no one calls the TO over, then the TO is unlikely to see it. And that's especially true when you have a couple dozen tables and two or three judges. They don't have anything better to do, but that doesn't make them omniscient.So you're absolutely right that people shouldn't perceive that as a license to cheat (or even a licence). But realistically, the only alternatives to the kind of situation the OP poses seem to be either having a TO at every table or building a culture where it's okay to call the TO over even for "minor infractions".

And building that culture isn't going to happen if people take the stance that a TO/Judge's responsibility isn't pro-actively catching players violating rules during the games. Or if people act as if it isn't in the games interest to have others pointing out blatant rules violations like this.

Judges aren't going to catch everything, but they are there to catch things. Not just sit and look pretty, though I am great at that.

In my experience TOs aren't normally standing around watching matches acting as a line judge or referee for matches. They are off to the side doing whatever it is that TO's do during tournaments (most likely playing Doomtown or Dead of Winter) until someone needs them to make a ruling or has a question.

Spectators need to butt out and spectate, especially if the TO is watching the game. I don't want someone interrupting my game because they don't like what my opponent is doing. They can feel free to contact the TO after the match to make sure that the TO understands the rules but during the game they shouldn't be undercutting the TO's authority. Especially with crap that isn't directly covered in the rules or the FAQ and is open to TO discretion, like touching the mat while deciding whether or not to boost..

I'm sorry your experience is with bad TOs. A TO should be up and watching games. Not just to catch things, but to make themselves accessible to the players. Otherwise people feel as if they are burdening the TO by calling for him, which means they won't do so, in instances that they really should.

And frankly, I feel, there is zero room in this case to act as if it isn't something covered by the base ruleset. The rules tell you that all 'pre-measuring" needs to be done via estimates in one's own head. That they explicitly cite not using templates doesn't somehow allow you to use other manners of pre-measuring. As with all things the rules tell you what you can do (estimate in your head) not all of the things you can't do, it would never be able to cover them all. The rules can't be approached in a manner that boils down to, well it doesn't say I can't do this, so therefore I can.

I think that I've had good TOs at most of the tournaments that I've attended. They've put together good events that have run smoothly and have always seemed to be knowledgeable about the game and its rules. They seem to get pulled over to a table at least once or twice per round so I can't imagine that anyone who would call them over if they were just watching another match would hesitate to have them come clarify a rule or settle a dispute.

But the rules aren't as cut and dried as you are making them appear to be. The bit of the rules that you are referring to specifically call out the Planning phase.

"During the Planning phase, players cannot use maneuver templates in order to “test” where ships will end up. Instead, they must plan their maneuvers by estimating their ships’ movement in their heads."

Without the "During the Planning phase" bit that passage from the rules might be assumed to apply to the game as whole. However, since they specifically call out the Planning phase it could logically follow that this is the exception. There is nothing in the rules that extend this to the Activation or Combat phase. The basic rules permit checking your boosts and barrel rolls with templates before commiting to the action. In the Competetive Play section it mentions that the direction of a boost or barrel roll be commited to before using the template to measure. It also tells you when you are allowed to use a range ruler. There is nothing that I can find in either the FAQ or the Rules that address this. Until such a time that something appears in one of these two places a TO that prevents a player from doing this is using his discretion to issue a judgement.

[Klutz 1,590]

snip.

Alex Davy seems of the opinion that, despite the "During the planning phase" bit, the no premeasuring with templates/fingers/anything else rule applies globally.

Rules Question:

Are players, in tournament play, permitted to put their finger/hand down on the play mat to visualize the position of their ship after a boost, barrel roll, decloak, or maneuver? Example: If I'm flying a TIE Interceptor, can I put my finger down where I think a Barrel Roll will put me? Or does this fall under the "players may not pre-measure and may only use their eyes" rule?

Answer:

It does. Players should refrain from using their hands or fingers to make any measurements in strict tournament play.

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Edited May 31, 2015 by Klutz

[WWHSD 9,273]

Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

What is being discussed is whether or not TOs should be intervening in games where they haven't been called over by an opponent that objects to this practice. Based on what we have, a TO that turns a blind eye to this (or refuses to become involved when a third party asks him to) if not asked for a ruling by a participant in the match isn't being negligent. The very loaded term 'cheating' has been used multiple times in this thread to describe using fingers to premeasure a boost or barrel roll. Without rules in place that forbid it, it is very unfair to call people that do this cheaters. They are just playing by a different interpretation of an unclear ruleset than you are.

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

[DanDoulogos 753]

Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

What is being discussed is whether or not TOs should be intervening in games where they haven't been called over by an opponent that objects to this practice. Based on what we have, a TO that turns a blind eye to this (or refuses to become involved when a third party asks him to) if not asked for a ruling by a participant in the match isn't being negligent. The very loaded term 'cheating' has been used multiple times in this thread to describe using fingers to premeasure a boost or barrel roll. Without rules in place that forbid it, it is very unfair to call people that do this cheaters. They are just playing by a different interpretation of an unclear ruleset than you are.

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

I repeat

Correcting myself, where I said,

I am glad that Alex Davy expounded the original intention in a way that made the intention of the design team clear (measuring with hands is a no-no).

Unfortunately, if the clarification mentioned in that off-hand (pun intended) email reply does not find its way into an FAQ or some other official document, I expect the matter be left to the discretion of the judge in charge of the tournament - who may or may not be as informed on this matter as those who have read this (or the other) thread.

 

Upon further reading, I became convinced that the matter isn't quite the foggy gray area I first imagined,

 

...players cannot use maneuver templates in order to “test” where ships will end up. Instead, they must plan their maneuvers by estimating their ships’ movement in their heads.

 

Even without the clarification given by Alex Davy, the Core Rules are clear (if implicit): you must plan your maneuvers by estimating your ship's movement in your head - that precludes all measuring devices (templates, range rulers, and body parts").

 

That being the case, anyone doing this is cheating, and any TO who suffers cheating (whether in ignorance or in compliance) ought not to be a Tournament Organizer.

[WWHSD 9,273]

Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

What is being discussed is whether or not TOs should be intervening in games where they haven't been called over by an opponent that objects to this practice. Based on what we have, a TO that turns a blind eye to this (or refuses to become involved when a third party asks him to) if not asked for a ruling by a participant in the match isn't being negligent. The very loaded term 'cheating' has been used multiple times in this thread to describe using fingers to premeasure a boost or barrel roll. Without rules in place that forbid it, it is very unfair to call people that do this cheaters. They are just playing by a different interpretation of an unclear ruleset than you are.

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

I repeat

Correcting myself, where I said,

I am glad that Alex Davy expounded the original intention in a way that made the intention of the design team clear (measuring with hands is a no-no).

Unfortunately, if the clarification mentioned in that off-hand (pun intended) email reply does not find its way into an FAQ or some other official document, I expect the matter be left to the discretion of the judge in charge of the tournament - who may or may not be as informed on this matter as those who have read this (or the other) thread.

 

Upon further reading, I became convinced that the matter isn't quite the foggy gray area I first imagined,

 

...players cannot use maneuver templates in order to “test” where ships will end up. Instead, they must plan their maneuvers by estimating their ships’ movement in their heads.

 

Even without the clarification given by Alex Davy, the Core Rules are clear (if implicit): you must plan your maneuvers by estimating your ship's movement in your head - that precludes all measuring devices (templates, range rulers, and body parts").

 That being the case, anyone doing this is cheating, and any TO who suffers cheating (whether in ignorance or in compliance) ought not to be a Tournament Organizer.

Why are you repeating that? Just because you repeat it doesn't any more accurate. You are conveniently leaving out the part of that part that says it applies to the planning phase. Furthermore, the bit of the rules that you insist on partially quoting out of context deals with "maneuvers" which is a word that has a specific meaning in the context of this game. Neither a boost or a barrel-roll is a maneuver. In fact it is perfectly legimate under the basic rules as presented in the rule book to use the the templates to check a barrel-roll and then decide based on where you will actually end up whether or not to do so. The competitive rules added in the FAQ are where the concept of needing to commit to a direction come from.

You are cherry picking sections of the rules (and not even whole sentences at that) and claiming that they clearly say one thing when they don't. Further, you are hanging inflammatory labels on people that disagree with you on a matter that the rules are vague about. I don't imagine that there's anything that I can write that will convince you that this may indeed be a gray area in the rules because you've got your mind made up and have your half-sentence of rules that agree with your view.

Which of your other opinions do TOs need to agree with in order to be qualified for a time-consuming volunteer position?

[Klutz 1,590]

Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[...]

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

The e-mail is relevant to the discussion as it responds to your comment of "There is nothing that I can find in either the FAQ or the Rules that address this".

Of course, whenever someone posts a ruling that was issued via an e-mail response someone responds that it's just an e-mail and has no value unless it's in the FAQ.

The RAW state that pre-measuring with templates is illegal during the planning phase, and that players must only use their eyes. The RAW also state that premeasuring with templates is illegal when boosting, barrel rolling, etc. It is, admittedly, open to interpretation whether or not the "only use your eyes" bit should also apply to boosting/barre rolling/etc. Fortunately, we have an e-mail from the designer of the game and author of the FAQ that give us the RAI.

If you choose to ignore it, that's you "using [your] discretion to issue a judgement" that goes against the RAI.

What is being discussed is whether or not TOs should be intervening in games where they haven't been called over by an opponent that objects to this practice. Based on what we have, a TO that turns a blind eye to this (or refuses to become involved when a third party asks him to) if not asked for a ruling by a participant in the match isn't being negligent. The very loaded term 'cheating' has been used multiple times in this thread to describe using fingers to premeasure a boost or barrel roll. Without rules in place that forbid it, it is very unfair to call people that do this cheaters. They are just playing by a different interpretation of an unclear ruleset than you are.

Whether a TO should be actively watching the players and making sure they don't do anything illegal is a different matter, and finger-measuring is only a specific case.

I don't think that having the TO intervene only if a player calls on him is the right way to go about it. It's almost like saying you can cheat as long as your opponent doesn't notice.

I'm curious whether you think a TO should intervene is they notice a player perform an action while stressed, or performing an attack while on an asteroid?

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[...]

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

The e-mail is relevant to the discussion as it responds to your comment of "There is nothing that I can find in either the FAQ or the Rules that address this".

Of course, whenever someone posts a ruling that was issued via an e-mail response someone responds that it's just an e-mail and has no value unless it's in the FAQ.

The RAW state that pre-measuring with templates is illegal during the planning phase, and that players must only use their eyes. The RAW also state that premeasuring with templates is illegal when boosting, barrel rolling, etc. It is, admittedly, open to interpretation whether or not the "only use your eyes" bit should also apply to boosting/barre rolling/etc. Fortunately, we have an e-mail from the designer of the game and author of the FAQ that give us the RAI.

If you choose to ignore it, that's you "using [your] discretion to issue a judgement" that goes against the RAI.

 

 

 

Alex's email doesn't point to anything in the rules that actually deals with touching the mat to estimate distance when performing a boost or a barrel-roll. Scour the rules and FAQ as hard as you like, it's not in there (or at least no one has pointed it out yet). Alex is making a statement about how he'd like the rules to work. He's not responding with "oh hey guys, here's this rule that you guys aren't looking at over here that addresses this". Most people that play (and probably a decent number that TO) don't read these forums and even less of them follow this subforum. When all you have to go by is an email from Alex posted by a user on a forum it's pretty crappy to call people cheaters and to suggest that TOs that don't proactively enforce Alex's emails shouldn't be TOs. 

 

To be clear,  I'm not saying that the rules permit players to use their hands to estimate distances before boosting and barrel-rolling, just that they don't actually prohibit it either. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the actual rules are unclear and that maybe the mob of angry villagers should take it easy and calm down before lynching "cheaters".

 

 

 

 

 

What is being discussed is whether or not TOs should be intervening in games where they haven't been called over by an opponent that objects to this practice. Based on what we have, a TO that turns a blind eye to this (or refuses to become involved when a third party asks him to) if not asked for a ruling by a participant in the match isn't being negligent. The very loaded term 'cheating' has been used multiple times in this thread to describe using fingers to premeasure a boost or barrel roll. Without rules in place that forbid it, it is very unfair to call people that do this cheaters. They are just playing by a different interpretation of an unclear ruleset than you are.

Whether a TO should be actively watching the players and making sure they don't do anything illegal is a different matter, and finger-measuring is only a specific case.

I don't think that having the TO intervene only if a player calls on him is the right way to go about it. It's almost like saying you can cheat as long as your opponent doesn't notice.

I'm curious whether you think a TO should intervene is they notice a player perform an action while stressed, or performing an attack while on an asteroid?

 

 

Intervening when it's obvious that an actual rule is being violated is one thing. Intervening on something that only rules forum wonks would even be in a position to know about is another (especially if it took some busybody spectator showing the TO Alex's email to get him over to the table). It's not like FFG even has a "Go Ask Alex" blog where rules questions to the devs and their responses get posted. If someone interrupts a game that my opponent and I are contentedly playing because of a rule violation that they noticed, then they **** well better be able to point to something in the rule book or FAQ or I'm going to be a little irked about the interruption. If the TO gets called over by one of the players that is actually involved and gets asked to make a call, that's a different story.  

Edited June 1, 2015 by WWHSD

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Alex's email doesn't need to point to anything in the rules, because there is nothing in the rules allowing that type of measurement to begin with.

Nowhere in the rules will you find anything granting a player the ability to pre-measure in the manner that is being discussed in this thread. The rules do not allow for it, therefore it is not allowed. How is that a difficult concept? How is there any grey area there?

You can not approach the rules for this game, or any game for that manner, with the mindset that anything not specifically disallowed is therefore allowed. That is an untenable standard to hold the rules to, it just does not work. If you apply that view point to the rules then you are saying that any number of clearly not legal things, are legal. Such as arbitrarily re-rolling dice, adding dice without an ability saying to do so, randomly changing facing, taking away damage/adding shield. The rules don't say you aren't allowed to do those things, but are you really going to suggest that on that basis those things are allowed or that thier legality is a gray area?

Prominent tournament players applying that type of rationale to the rules is both laughable and problematic. Laughable because of the absurdities highlighted above. Problematic because they will get away with it because players assume they are authorities on the subject of the rules. That the commentary of the posted YouTube video made note that they'll stop if asked highlights the reality that they know what there doing isn't within the rules. If it were there would be no grounds for the opponent to ask them to stop.

[WWHSD 9,273]

Alex's email doesn't need to point to anything in the rules, because there is nothing in the rules allowing that type of measurement to begin with.

Nowhere in the rules will you find anything granting a player the ability to pre-measure in the manner that is being discussed in this thread. The rules do not allow for it, therefore it is not allowed. How is that a difficult concept? How is there any grey area there?

You can not approach the rules for this game, or any game for that manner, with the mindset that anything not specifically disallowed is therefore allowed. That is an untenable standard to hold the rules to, it just does not work. If you apply that view point to the rules then you are saying that any number of clearly not legal things, are legal. Such as arbitrarily re-rolling dice, adding dice without an ability saying to do so, randomly changing facing, taking away damage/adding shield. The rules don't say you aren't allowed to do those things, but are you really going to suggest that on that basis those things are allowed or that their legality is a gray area?

Prominent tournament players applying that type of rationale to the rules is both laughable and problematic. Laughable because of the absurdities highlighted above. Problematic because they will get away with it because players assume they are authorities on the subject of the rules. That the commentary of the posted YouTube video made note that they'll stop if asked highlights the reality that they know what there doing isn't within the rules. If it were there would be no grounds for the opponent to ask them to stop.

 

 

The rules don't expressly permit the marking of a ship's location while temporarily removing it from play so as to make it possible to lay templates on the table or use a range ruler unobstructed. Should we consider doing so to be a violation of the rules?

 

The rules dictate that players sit opposite from one another. Should we consider standing (or worse yet walking around the table for a different perspective) a rule violation since the rules don't allow for it?

 

When the rules are calling out that an action is not permitted under specific circumstances, doesn't it make sense that when those circumstances are not met that the action would be permitted? If that's not the case, why not just have a blanket prohibition against the action instead of something specific?

 

Why is it surprising that players who recognize that something they do is in a gray area of the rules will play differently if asked? They likely play against people that do the same exact thing and are expecting that their opponent will do it as well. The guy that marks each of his 4 B-Wings with a Blue Target lock token inserted into the base (using the letter on the TL to identify them instead of the numbered tombstone) would probably use the numbered tombstones instead if his opponent insists. I frequently move a few ships activating at the same time and announce that they each take a focus action and wait until the end of all the moves to actually place the tokens. If my opponent complains about that I'd slow things down and place the tokens one by one as called for by the rules. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by WWHSD

[ScottieATF 2,867]

In both those instances what you are suggesting players are doing is not gaining them an undue advantage by doing so. That's besides the fact that activating in mass is specifically disallowed in the rules itself. In the case of pre-measuring with ones fingers you are absolutely gaining an advantage, that the rules never entitle you to take, by doing so. Gaining an advantage by violating what the rules of the game allow. What do we call that? Cheating.

There are no grounds to assert that this type of pre-measuring is at all legal. No part of the Rulebook ever grants you the ability to take measurements in this manner or in that specific timing. Just as the rules don't grant you the ability to just remove damage cards because you feel like it. Unlike many shortcuts that get taken in the game that the rules also don't allow for, this gives you an advantage by allowing you information you are not, by the rules, entitled to.

It should not take an FAQ entry to tell players to not play outside the ruleset in order to gain an undue advantage.

[Klutz 1,590]

 Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[...]

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

The e-mail is relevant to the discussion as it responds to your comment of "There is nothing that I can find in either the FAQ or the Rules that address this".

Of course, whenever someone posts a ruling that was issued via an e-mail response someone responds that it's just an e-mail and has no value unless it's in the FAQ.

The RAW state that pre-measuring with templates is illegal during the planning phase, and that players must only use their eyes. The RAW also state that premeasuring with templates is illegal when boosting, barrel rolling, etc. It is, admittedly, open to interpretation whether or not the "only use your eyes" bit should also apply to boosting/barre rolling/etc. Fortunately, we have an e-mail from the designer of the game and author of the FAQ that give us the RAI.

If you choose to ignore it, that's you "using [your] discretion to issue a judgement" that goes against the RAI.

 

Alex's email doesn't point to anything in the rules that actually deals with touching the mat to estimate distance when performing a boost or a barrel-roll. Scour the rules and FAQ as hard as you like, it's not in there (or at least no one has pointed it out yet). Alex is making a statement about how he'd like the rules to work. He's not responding with "oh hey guys, here's this rule that you guys aren't looking at over here that addresses this". Most people that play (and probably a decent number that TO) don't read these forums and even less of them follow this subforum. When all you have to go by is an email from Alex posted by a user on a forum it's pretty crappy to call people cheaters and to suggest that TOs that don't proactively enforce Alex's emails shouldn't be TOs. 

 

To be clear,  I'm not saying that the rules permit players to use their hands to estimate distances before boosting and barrel-rolling, just that they don't actually prohibit it either. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the actual rules are unclear and that maybe the mob of angry villagers should take it easy and calm down before lynching "cheaters".

 

 

You keep repeating that there's nothing in the rules that explicitly forbids measuring boosts and barrel rolls with your fingers. I'm not saying there is.

 

Let me repeat my argument:

• The RAW...
  • state that during the planning phase, you cannot pre-measure with templates.
  • state that during the planning phase, you may only estimate your ship's movement in your head.
  • state that when performing a boost or barrel roll, you cannot pre-measure with templates.
  • do not state that you cannot pre-measure a boost or barrel roll with you fingers or other objects.
• Two possible interpretations...
  • the "only use your head" rule from the planning phase should apply to all other phases of the game.
  • the "only use your head" rule from the planning phase should only apply to the planning phase.
• Thanks to Alex Davy's e-mail, we know that the RAI are that the "only use your head" rule should apply to all phases of the game.
• Coming from the game's designer, this RAI is as good as a RAW. (Although I'm sure you'll disagree.)

Players not knowing the rules is not an excuse for not abiding by them.

[DanDoulogos 753]

The rules for performing a barrel roll action near an obstacle are incomplete. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the left column should read:

“A ship cannot perform a barrel roll if this would cause its base to overlap another ship or obstacle token, or if the maneuver template overlaps an obstacle token."

When performing a barrel roll, a player must first declare from which side of the ship’s base the action will be performed. Then, he measures to see if the ship is able to perform a barrel roll action from any legal area on the declared side. If the ship can perform the barrel roll action, it must do so. If the ship cannot perform the barrel roll action, the player may declare a barrel roll in the other direction, or he may declare a different action.

When performing a boost, a player must declare which maneuver template and direction he will use. Then, he measures to see if the ship is able to perform a boost action with the declared template in the desired direction. If the ship can perform the boost action, it must do so. If the ship cannot perform the boost action, the player may declare a different maneuver template or direction to use, or he may declare a different action

The rules explain that when you opt to perform a boost or barrel roll, you must:

• declare that you are doing so,
• Indicate which action you intend to do (Barrel Roll, or Boost)
• Indicate where you intend to do the action (to the left or right in the case of a Barrel Roll, or banking left, right, or moving straight for Boost), then
• measure to see if you can perform the action...

If, after doing all this, your ship ends up partially or entirely out of the play area - the rules let us know that your ship is destroyed.

 

I accept that what the core rules say, regarding maneuvers in the Planning phase (you're not allowed to "test" where a ship will be before committing to a maneuver on your dial), has not been explicitly re-stated for "movement" actions that take place in the Activation phase.

 

It seems to me however, that the rules for Barrel Rolls and Boosts (see quotes above) not only leave no wiggle room for finger measuring, but also become superfluous if finger measuring (or any other kind of measuring) were allowed.

 

Why (How?) would anyone fly their ship off the table if they were allowed to test where the ship would end up before committing to the action?

 

 

I stand by what I said previously however - if a TO sees someone CHEATING (such as (but not limited to) measuring maneuvers before committing to them (in the planning phase)) he is obliged by his honorary office to correct the matter. 

 

If someone is measuring Barrel Rolls and/or Boosts with their fingers or with the appropriate maneuver templates "in the Activation phase" before they have declared that they intend to boost or do a barrel roll, and before they inform their opponent where they intend to do the Barrel Roll or Boost - they are not conforming to the order laid out in the rules, and they are therefore CHEATING.

 

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not suggesting that people who make mistakes out of an ignorance of the rules are cheaters.  In order to cheat, you must be breaking *real* rules.

 

In the case of testing where your ship will be before you commit to moving it (by measuring) - whether that be in the planning phase, or measuring before declaring an action in the Activation phase - both are clear violations of the rules as written.

 

I think the rules are explicit enough to call cheating (in both the Planning and the Activation phase) if someone measures before committing to the move.

 

If someone else on the Internet believes otherwise, I'm okay with that. But I don't hold my opinion just to irk someone else - The rules say you either cannot measure (planning phase), or tell you when you can measure (activation phase). In both scenarios measuring with your fingers (or anything else) before declaring your move (either by setting your dial in the Planning phase, or by announcing your intention in the Activation phase) is disallowed.

 

If someone starts measuring with their fingers (or whatever) in the Activation phase, to see if they can move here or there - I will recite the rule to them, which tells them they must declare their intention first, then measure afterwards - if they do not respect that - then they are, according to the letter of the written rules, cheating.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 Alex Davy has a history of sending emails with rulings that are not necessarily backed up by anything found in the rules or FAQ. (which is his prerogative as the game's designer). Sure, those emails usually end up making it into the FAQ but that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[...]

Until someone sees fit to incorporate Alex's response into one of the official rules sources it is merely a ruling made by a TO on a gray area in the rules. Because of who he is his rulings tend to set precedents and other TOs conform to his ruling.

The e-mail is relevant to the discussion as it responds to your comment of "There is nothing that I can find in either the FAQ or the Rules that address this".

Of course, whenever someone posts a ruling that was issued via an e-mail response someone responds that it's just an e-mail and has no value unless it's in the FAQ.

The RAW state that pre-measuring with templates is illegal during the planning phase, and that players must only use their eyes. The RAW also state that premeasuring with templates is illegal when boosting, barrel rolling, etc. It is, admittedly, open to interpretation whether or not the "only use your eyes" bit should also apply to boosting/barre rolling/etc. Fortunately, we have an e-mail from the designer of the game and author of the FAQ that give us the RAI.

If you choose to ignore it, that's you "using [your] discretion to issue a judgement" that goes against the RAI.

 

Alex's email doesn't point to anything in the rules that actually deals with touching the mat to estimate distance when performing a boost or a barrel-roll. Scour the rules and FAQ as hard as you like, it's not in there (or at least no one has pointed it out yet). Alex is making a statement about how he'd like the rules to work. He's not responding with "oh hey guys, here's this rule that you guys aren't looking at over here that addresses this". Most people that play (and probably a decent number that TO) don't read these forums and even less of them follow this subforum. When all you have to go by is an email from Alex posted by a user on a forum it's pretty crappy to call people cheaters and to suggest that TOs that don't proactively enforce Alex's emails shouldn't be TOs. 

 

To be clear,  I'm not saying that the rules permit players to use their hands to estimate distances before boosting and barrel-rolling, just that they don't actually prohibit it either. I'm just trying to get people to understand that the actual rules are unclear and that maybe the mob of angry villagers should take it easy and calm down before lynching "cheaters".

 

 

You keep repeating that there's nothing in the rules that explicitly forbids measuring boosts and barrel rolls with your fingers. I'm not saying there is.

 

Let me repeat my argument:

• The RAW...
  • state that during the planning phase, you cannot pre-measure with templates.
  • state that during the planning phase, you may only estimate your ship's movement in your head.
  • state that when performing a boost or barrel roll, you cannot pre-measure with templates.
  • do not state that you cannot pre-measure a boost or barrel roll with you fingers or other objects.
• Two possible interpretations...
  • the "only use your head" rule from the planning phase should apply to all other phases of the game.
  • the "only use your head" rule from the planning phase should only apply to the planning phase.
• Thanks to Alex Davy's e-mail, we know that the RAI are that the "only use your head" rule should apply to all phases of the game.
• Coming from the game's designer, this RAI is as good as a RAW. (Although I'm sure you'll disagree.)

Players not knowing the rules is not an excuse for not abiding by them.

 

 

I don't think we disagree. I think we are just speaking in circles around each other. I'm refuting that RAW is not cut and dried as several other posters are claiming. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by WWHSD

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Can you point to anywhere in the rules that grant the ability to a player to pre-measure in the manner being discussed in this thread? Or is the only justification the fact that it is not specifically disallowed in the rules? And as such are any of the number of not specifically disallowed things somehow allowable by that logic? Despite being clearly not in keeping with the rules?

That is the exact issue I have with the stance that this is somehow unclear based on the rules. Because if this is unclear the same argument says it unclear whether or not I can add shields back to one of my ships at random. And I view that concept as downright ludicrous.

Edited June 1, 2015 by ScottieATF

[WWHSD 9,273]

Can you point to anywhere in the rules that grant the ability to a player to pre-measure in the manner being discussed in this thread? Or is the only justification the fact that it is not specifically disallowed in the rules? And as such are any of the number of not specifically disallowed things somehow allowable by that logic? Despite being clearly not in keeping with the rules?

That is the exact issue I have with the stance that this is somehow unclear based on the rules. Because if this is unclear the same argument says it unclear whether or not I can add shields back to one of my ships at random. And I view that concept as downright ludicrous.

 

 Things like manipulating stats and dice rolls are fairly rigidly defined by the rules because they can't exist outside of the rules. When you start dealing with the logistics and human actions required to play the game the rules stop being as "if it doesn't actually say you can do it, you can't do it".   

 

How about you pick some examples that aren't ridiculous that people actually commonly do that are not expressly permitted by the rules. Do you play all of your games sitting? Do you move around the table to get a better perspective? The rules specifically instruct you to sit across from from your opponent and make no allowances for standing or moving away from your side of the table. Do you move ships out of the way to make it easier to use maneuver templates or measure with range rulers? The rules don't permit that either. When making a straight maneuver through a crowded area, do you ever place the movement template on the outside of the nub so that you can place it unobstructed? Not permitted by the rules.

Edited June 1, 2015 by WWHSD