2 questions: What happens when it's impossible to place the last obstacle|What should I do when I encounter people measuring out multiple attacks?

[WWHSD 9,273]

If someone does something that might be illegal, you don't just advance the game state to the first point where it happens to be legal.  

 

The game state is already at the point that the action that the player took is legal. Them doing anything other than completing the sequence of events that they started is what would make the action illegal.

 

Step one of an attack starts with using the range ruler to measure range and check arcs:

 

"ATTACK

A ship can perform one attack when it becomes the active ship during the Combat phase. To perform an attack, the ship resolves the following steps in order:

1. Declare Target: The attacker may measure range to any number of enemy ships and check which enemy ships are inside his firing arc. Then the attacker chooses one of his weapons to attack with. Then he chooses one enemy ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack."

 

 

How do we know which ship is the active ship:

 

 

"COMBAT PHASE

During the Combat phase, each ship has an opportunity to perform one attack, starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill and continuing in descending order.

• If a player has multiple ships with the same pilot skill value, he can attack with them in any order.

• If both players have ships with the same pilot skill value, the player with initiative attacks with all of his ships of that pilot skill first.

• Each ship becomes the active ship only once during this phase.

• A ship may choose not to attack."

 

 

When one player has multiple ships at the same pilot skill they can activate those ships in whatever order they choose. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the player announces which ship they have chosen to make active. Performing an action which is part of the first step of the attack sequence seem like a clear indicator that a choice has been made and what that choice is.

[emmjay 319]

If someone does something that might be illegal, you don't just advance the game state to the first point where it happens to be legal.

 

The game state is already at the point that the action that the player took is legal. Them doing anything other than completing the sequence of events that they started is what would make the action illegal.

 

Step one of an attack starts with using the range ruler to measure range and check arcs:

 

"ATTACK

A ship can perform one attack when it becomes the active ship during the Combat phase. To perform an attack, the ship resolves the following steps in order:

1. Declare Target: The attacker may measure range to any number of enemy ships and check which enemy ships are inside his firing arc. Then the attacker chooses one of his weapons to attack with. Then he chooses one enemy ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack."

 

 

How do we know which ship is the active ship:

 

 

"COMBAT PHASE

During the Combat phase, each ship has an opportunity to perform one attack, starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill and continuing in descending order.

• If a player has multiple ships with the same pilot skill value, he can attack with them in any order.

• If both players have ships with the same pilot skill value, the player with initiative attacks with all of his ships of that pilot skill first.

• Each ship becomes the active ship only once during this phase.

• A ship may choose not to attack."

 

 

When one player has multiple ships at the same pilot skill they can activate those ships in whatever order they choose. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the player announces which ship they have chosen to make active. Performing an action which is part of the first step of the attack sequence seem like a clear indicator that a choice has been made and what that choice is.

Correct, however, the issue I see is the player measuring all of his ships then attacking. He needed to pick just 1 ship at a time. Measuring more than 1 each time, well, no.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

If someone does something that might be illegal, you don't just advance the game state to the first point where it happens to be legal.

 

The game state is already at the point that the action that the player took is legal. Them doing anything other than completing the sequence of events that they started is what would make the action illegal.

 

Step one of an attack starts with using the range ruler to measure range and check arcs:

 

"ATTACK

A ship can perform one attack when it becomes the active ship during the Combat phase. To perform an attack, the ship resolves the following steps in order:

1. Declare Target: The attacker may measure range to any number of enemy ships and check which enemy ships are inside his firing arc. Then the attacker chooses one of his weapons to attack with. Then he chooses one enemy ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack."

 

 

How do we know which ship is the active ship:

 

 

"COMBAT PHASE

During the Combat phase, each ship has an opportunity to perform one attack, starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill and continuing in descending order.

• If a player has multiple ships with the same pilot skill value, he can attack with them in any order.

• If both players have ships with the same pilot skill value, the player with initiative attacks with all of his ships of that pilot skill first.

• Each ship becomes the active ship only once during this phase.

• A ship may choose not to attack."

 

 

When one player has multiple ships at the same pilot skill they can activate those ships in whatever order they choose. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the player announces which ship they have chosen to make active. Performing an action which is part of the first step of the attack sequence seem like a clear indicator that a choice has been made and what that choice is.

Correct, however, the issue I see is the player measuring all of his ships then attacking. He needed to pick just 1 ship at a time. Measuring more than 1 each time, well, no.

 

 

I'm saying that you cut the player off after he's measured from his first eligible ship and make him finish resolving his attack. I'm not sure why exactly Buhallin has an issue with that.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

There is a decision point where a player chooses which ship to attack with. If you are waiting at that decision point, you don't move on when someone makes an illegal measurement - you treat the measurement as illegal, and handle it just like you would if they'd done it in the activation, planning, or end phases.

Go back and read the situation that I'm talking about. It's not Han and 3 Zs. It's just the three Zs

 

If you cannot apply the rule to a generalized situation, it's a bad rule.  You're trying to invent a rule to advance the game state based on something the opponent did because you happen to think it's close enough to be an acceptable level of punishment.  The problem is that there's really nothing to support this being anything but an illegal measurement.  If I measure to see if my ship is in range before you execute your last maneuver, or if I measure for a PS 5 ship before my PS 2 ships activate, your rule falls apart.  That makes it a pretty weak rule.

 

If you were the TO how would you handle it? I call you over and point out my opponent's three Bandits. I let you know that it is time for one of those ships to fire and that he has already measured to multiple targets from one of the Z-95s. Other than telling my opponent that he must finish attacking with the Z-95 he has measured from, how would you rule?

 

I'd rule it exactly as I've suggested here - I'm honestly not sure why you think I wouldn't.  It was an illegal measurement taken out of turn.  I'd rule it like any other illegal measurement taken at any time during the game.  Taking an illegal measurement does not imply that you've given up any opportunities.  I'd do exactly as Parravon says - I'd inform your opponent of how the measuring restrictions work, when they can and can't measure, warn them, and call it done.

 

What I WOULDN'T do is invent a "You were close enough so that counts as you moving to the first possible time you could have done that" rule.  There's absolutely nothing that says measuring from a ship counts as measuring for an attack, at any point, and nothing that says you get to declare for your opponent what his active ship is.

 

 

I'm saying that you cut the player off after he's measured from his first eligible ship and make him finish resolving his attack. I'm not sure why exactly Buhallin has an issue with that.

 

Because the player has pretty clearly not made that choice at that point, likely out of ignorance of the actual flow.  You're not trying to clear up the rules - you're trying to punish your opponent.

[Parravon 5,217]

 

I'd tell him "Declare which ship is the active ship and make all measurements and attacks before moving on to the next ship. Any measuring from any ship other than the active ship is considered pre-measuring and cheating."

 

'nuff said

 

That's not really "'nuff said" because I'm not sure that I understand how you ruled. Are you essentially giving the player a warning and then letting him choose a different ship to attack with?

 

Well if I just told him that, and then you said "He's already measured from that ship", I'd say "That's the active ship then. Resolve your attack before moving to the next ship".

And yes, it would effectively be a warning at that stage. Remember, as a TO that's only just arrived at the table, I've only got your word or his word to go on. I've seen no actual proof of anything myself.

 

One of the things I've seen so often is the activation of ships of all the same PS at the same time. A player flips all the dials on his PS 4 ships, then moves them all, then goes back and assigns actions to them all. And the same mentality follows through to the Combat Phase. The rules say one at a time, but this still gets abused.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

 

There is a decision point where a player chooses which ship to attack with. If you are waiting at that decision point, you don't move on when someone makes an illegal measurement - you treat the measurement as illegal, and handle it just like you would if they'd done it in the activation, planning, or end phases.

Go back and read the situation that I'm talking about. It's not Han and 3 Zs. It's just the three Zs

 

If you cannot apply the rule to a generalized situation, it's a bad rule.  You're trying to invent a rule to advance the game state based on something the opponent did because you happen to think it's close enough to be an acceptable level of punishment.  The problem is that there's really nothing to support this being anything but an illegal measurement.  If I measure to see if my ship is in range before you execute your last maneuver, or if I measure for a PS 5 ship before my PS 2 ships activate, your rule falls apart.  That makes it a pretty weak rule.

 

 

The rule can absolutely be applied to a generalized situation. You are just applying the wrong rule. It's not the distance measuring that makes the ship the active ship, it's measuring the distance from a ship that is eligible to be the active ship at a time where measuring from that ship is the next thing that would be done if the ship were activated that is important it here. If I had to write a rule to apply it would be something like, "If a player performs an action that would commit him to a course of action at a time when that action could be legal, the player is committed to the course of action".

Times when this would come into play:

 

- A player measures out attacks from a ship that is eligible to become the active ship in the combat phase.

- A player measures a barrel-roll or boost from a ship during its Perform Action step.

- A player measures a decloak  from an eligible ship at the start of the activation phase.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm saying that you cut the player off after he's measured from his first eligible ship and make him finish resolving his attack. I'm not sure why exactly Buhallin has an issue with that.

 

Because the player has pretty clearly not made that choice at that point, likely out of ignorance of the actual flow.  You're not trying to clear up the rules - you're trying to punish your opponent.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to punish anyone here. I'm trying to prevent a legal game situation from turning into an illegal one. A player made a measurement that to any onlooker would appear to be legal. It is only the player's mental state at the time of the measurement that makes the measurement illegal.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

I'm not trying to punish anyone here. I'm trying to prevent a legal game situation from turning into an illegal one. A player made a measurement that to any onlooker would appear to be legal. It is only the player's mental state at the time of the measurement that makes the measurement illegal.

 

So you're going determine whether the move is illegal or not based on their mental state?  How exactly is that going to work?  Jedi Mind Trick?

 

Someone who does this has pretty clearly not chosen to commit to attacking with a given ship.  That's the whole point of it.  You know very well what point they're at in the game flow, and you know what they're doing.  You don't get to force the choice on them to try and fix it - there's absolutely nothing in the rules that lets you do that, or suggests that is how it should be handled.  "Onlookers thought they knew what he intended to do" is not a valid rule standard.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

I'm not trying to punish anyone here. I'm trying to prevent a legal game situation from turning into an illegal one. A player made a measurement that to any onlooker would appear to be legal. It is only the player's mental state at the time of the measurement that makes the measurement illegal.

 

So you're going determine whether the move is illegal or not based on their mental state?  How exactly is that going to work?  Jedi Mind Trick?

 

Someone who does this has pretty clearly not chosen to commit to attacking with a given ship.  That's the whole point of it.  You know very well what point they're at in the game flow, and you know what they're doing.  You don't get to force the choice on them to try and fix it - there's absolutely nothing in the rules that lets you do that, or suggests that is how it should be handled.  "Onlookers thought they knew what he intended to do" is not a valid rule standard.

 

 

No, you determine that move was legal based on the fact that they made a measurement that would be legal to make at that time. That doesn't require knowing or even guessing at the players mental state. It also doesn't permit the player to realize "oh crap, the guy I was going to attack with isn't the one I should really have go first now that I know which ships are in arc", measure from another ship and take the better shot that you would permit. Because we can't read minds there is no way to know whether or not a player made an honest mistake or is taking advantage of the situation. Preventing an illegal measurement from ever being made removes that judgement call. 

 

If we were talking about the perform action step of the activation phase and someone measured out a barrel-roll and then decides to take a focus action instead would you object to making that player take the barrel-roll that they had measured out instead of the focus action even though they hadn't actually declared a barrel-roll action?

Edited October 6, 2015 by WWHSD

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

 

No, you determine that move was legal based on the fact that they made a measurement that would be legal to make at that time.

Except that it's actually not.  You cannot measure range to possible targets until you have selected a ship to attack with.  That is a necessary step.  You can't just jump past it, even if you pick it up and measure range.

 

 

If we were talking about the perform action step of the activation phase and someone measured out a barrel-roll and then decides to take a focus action instead would you object to making that player take the barrel-roll that they had measured out instead of the focus action even though they hadn't actually declared a barrel-roll action?

 

The difference here is that this IS a legal choice.  In this case the player is sitting at "Select Action".  They perform a barrel roll - there's nothing in between, and nothing else that has to happen before they perform that barrel roll.

 

But there IS something in between during the attack process - we know that there is something in between because that's exactly the choice you're trying to force on your opponent by declaring them to have implicitly made that choice.

 

Now if your opponent says "I'm going to attack with Blue 2", measures, then says "Wait, I'm going to attack with Blue 1 instead", then they're stuck - they've made that choice and progressed down the flow, and there's no going back.  But just measuring from Blue 2 doesn't mean that choice is made, and you don't get to force it on them.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

No, you determine that move was legal based on the fact that they made a measurement that would be legal to make at that time.

Except that it's actually not.  You cannot measure range to possible targets until you have selected a ship to attack with.  That is a necessary step.  You can't just jump past it, even if you pick it up and measure range.

 

 

If we were talking about the perform action step of the activation phase and someone measured out a barrel-roll and then decides to take a focus action instead would you object to making that player take the barrel-roll that they had measured out instead of the focus action even though they hadn't actually declared a barrel-roll action?

 

The difference here is that this IS a legal choice.  In this case the player is sitting at "Select Action".  They perform a barrel roll - there's nothing in between, and nothing else that has to happen before they perform that barrel roll.

 

But they haven't selected their action, they are wanting an additional piece of information to make that decision. Laying down the template to check where a barrel-roll would put them is illegal until they have declared that they will be performing a barrel-roll action. If laying down the template does not amount to a declaration which commits them to a decision why would you force the barrel-roll action on that player? 

This is the identical situation to measuring an attack from an eligible attacker. I don't see how measuring a barrel-roll makes it okay to force an action choice on someone but forcing an active ship choice for measuring out attacks is some sort of punishment that robs players of agency.

 

Where in the rules does it indicate that a player must announce which ship they are activating? I pasted in what I believe to be all of the rules that apply here and I don't see it. The rules simply indicate that a player chooses a ship to make active. It defines attack steps that start with measuring to any and all enemy ships before declaring one of them to be a defender. There is no declare attacker step. Doing something that can only legally be done with the active ship, in the order that that thing would be normally be done is as valid a way of indicating that choice as a player that makes a formal declaration. 

 

 

 

Now if your opponent says "I'm going to attack with Blue 2", measures, then says "Wait, I'm going to attack with Blue 1 instead", then they're stuck - they've made that choice and progressed down the flow, and there's no going back.  But just measuring from Blue 2 doesn't mean that choice is made, and you don't get to force it on them.

 

This just penalizes players for communicating, A player that is taking advantage of the situation won't make that verbal declaration. They'll measure everything that they want to check and then just announce where the attack is coming from. There should be zero difference between the way that those two circumstances are handled. There is too much gray area and ambiguity if starting to resolve a course of action doesn't commit a player to that course of action.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

This is the identical situation to measuring an attack from an eligible attacker. I don't see how measuring a barrel-roll makes it okay to force an action choice on someone but forcing an active ship choice for measuring out attacks is some sort of punishment that robs players of agency.

 

No, it's not the identical situation.  At one point, you are allowed to start a barrel roll.  At another, you are not allowed to measure range, because you can't be in the Declare Target step without having started the attack, and you can't start the attack without choosing the ship which is making the attack.  

 

 

Where in the rules does it indicate that a player must announce which ship they are activating? I pasted in what I believe to be all of the rules that apply here and I don't see it. The rules simply indicate that a player chooses a ship to make active.

 

For someone who seems to have a hate on for rules lawyers, you're certainly doing a very good job of playing one on TV.  Are you serious?  No, there is nothing in the rules that says you have to announce that choice, but announcing it is not the important part.  MAKING the choice, which the rules DO indicate, is the important part.  If a player is trying to measure from multiple possible attackers, they have rather obviously by the very definition NOT made that choice yet.

 

But really, your core argument comes down to "The rules don't say he has to announce it so I get to decide when he's made the choice?"

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

 

This is the identical situation to measuring an attack from an eligible attacker. I don't see how measuring a barrel-roll makes it okay to force an action choice on someone but forcing an active ship choice for measuring out attacks is some sort of punishment that robs players of agency.

 

No, it's not the identical situation.  At one point, you are allowed to start a barrel roll.  At another, you are not allowed to measure range, because you can't be in the Declare Target step without having started the attack, and you can't start the attack without choosing the ship which is making the attack.  

 

You aren't allowed to measure for a barrel-roll until you have declared that you are taking a barrel-roll action.

You aren't allowed to measure attacks until you have chosen a ship to be active.

 

In both of these cases you cannot make a measurement until a decision has been made. Why does one of those measurements commit you to a choice and the other doesn't? Either both of them should or neither of them should.

 

 

 

 

Where in the rules does it indicate that a player must announce which ship they are activating? I pasted in what I believe to be all of the rules that apply here and I don't see it. The rules simply indicate that a player chooses a ship to make active.

 

For someone who seems to have a hate on for rules lawyers, you're certainly doing a very good job of playing one on TV.  Are you serious?  No, there is nothing in the rules that says you have to announce that choice, but announcing it is not the important part.  MAKING the choice, which the rules DO indicate, is the important part.  If a player is trying to measure from multiple possible attackers, they have rather obviously by the very definition NOT made that choice yet.

 

But really, your core argument comes down to "The rules don't say he has to announce it so I get to decide when he's made the choice?"

 

 

I don't have anything against rules lawyers. You must have misinterpreted my joke about WAAC Players being what evil aligned Rules Lawyers (who aren't themselves inherently evil) grow up to be.  

 

 

 

I don't know if you are missing my point on purpose or if I'm just unable to clearly express myself.

 

Here are the assumptions I'm working with:

- The rules have a requirement that a choice be made as to which ship is active.

- The rules do not proscribe a method for making that choice known.

- Until the choice has been made, measuring out attacks is illegal.

- Measuring out attacks is the first thing that is done after making the choice.

- There is no way to remove the advantage gained by illegal measurements. 

- Allowing someone to do something that makes a legal action that they have already taken illegal should be avoided when possible. 

 

Based on those assumptions I'm drawing the following conclusion:

- Where there is no specific requirement on how to declare that a choice has been made, taking an action that is only legal if a choice has been made serves as a declaration.

 

 

The way I interpret your position is that only the person making the measurement can actually know if he is making a legal or illegal measurement. Nothing he does up until he declares an Attacker-Defender pair commits him to anything unless he makes a verbal affirmation of the choice he has made.  Nothing in the rules say that this verbal affirmation is any more or less valid a way to communicate the choice of which ship is the active ship than starting the first step of the attack is. 

 

Commiting a player to an attack sequence that they've started isn't a penalty. It might not end up being the optimal choice that they would have made with perfect information but X-Wing is a game based on not having perfect information. Allowing the player to choose a different ship to activate conveys an advantage to the player that would be breaking rules that requiring them to finish resolving the attack that they've begun doesn't. They aren't losing an attack, their opponent isn't picking their shot for them, their opponent isn't even picking the ship that they need to activate first. They performed an action that can either be legal or illegal depending on what happens next. Play was stopped before anything illegal occurred. Now that the player has been informed of the rules (that they are supposed to know) play can continue with everything that happened being completely legal.

[WWHSD 9,273]

One of the things I've seen so often is the activation of ships of all the same PS at the same time. A player flips all the dials on his PS 4 ships, then moves them all, then goes back and assigns actions to them all. 

 

I'm guilty of this in the the first round or so when it is obvious that no one is going to end up in range 3 just to get to the fun part of the game more quickly. I usually move my first guy and let my opponent know that they are all making the same move and focusing afterwards. If he doesn't mind I'll just move them all and token at the end. They usually start moving their ships while I'm still dealing with templates. 

[Parravon 5,217]

 

One of the things I've seen so often is the activation of ships of all the same PS at the same time. A player flips all the dials on his PS 4 ships, then moves them all, then goes back and assigns actions to them all. 

 

I'm guilty of this in the the first round or so when it is obvious that no one is going to end up in range 3 just to get to the fun part of the game more quickly. I usually move my first guy and let my opponent know that they are all making the same move and focusing afterwards. If he doesn't mind I'll just move them all and token at the end. They usually start moving their ships while I'm still dealing with templates. 

 

It may seem a quicker way to get into the action, but it's still against the rules. I used to do it, but these days, it's strictly one-at-a-time. Personally, I don't think it actually saves any time. You know what they're all doing and taking an evade, focus or target lock action is usually a waste of time at that stage anyway. I just flip the dial, move the ship, then flip the next one.

[WWHSD 9,273]

One of the things I've seen so often is the activation of ships of all the same PS at the same time. A player flips all the dials on his PS 4 ships, then moves them all, then goes back and assigns actions to them all.

 

I'm guilty of this in the the first round or so when it is obvious that no one is going to end up in range 3 just to get to the fun part of the game more quickly. I usually move my first guy and let my opponent know that they are all making the same move and focusing afterwards. If he doesn't mind I'll just move them all and token at the end. They usually start moving their ships while I'm still dealing with templates.

It may seem a quicker way to get into the action, but it's still against the rules. I used to do it, but these days, it's strictly one-at-a-time. Personally, I don't think it actually saves any time. You know what they're all doing and taking an evade, focus or target lock action is usually a waste of time at that stage anyway. I just flip the dial, move the ship, then flip the next one.

I really only do it if we've got squads with higher ship counts. If both players have a bunch of ships that won't be doing anything reactive it's faster to have them being moved at the same time.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

You aren't allowed to measure for a barrel-roll until you have declared that you are taking a barrel-roll action.

You aren't allowed to measure attacks until you have chosen a ship to be active.

 

In both of these cases you cannot make a measurement until a decision has been made. Why does one of those measurements commit you to a choice and the other doesn't? Either both of them should or neither of them should.

 

Because in the case of the barrel roll, the implied action is the very next thing.  If I start a barrel roll, you can safely assume that I'm doing a barrel roll, and there are no intervening decisions that you're making for me.  In the case of the attack, you are making that intervening decision.

 

You're doing everything you can to trivialize the choice, and claim that it's the only possible meaning, but that's not the case.  Your opponent could be measuring for an ability, or to see if you could attack them.  They could be quick-checking range to start working the next round of maneuvers in their head.  All of which is illegal measuring, of course, but has nothing to do with the attack.  But none of that applies, because you decided you know what they're doing so they don't have any choice but to do what you thought they were doing.

 

I think at this point it's pretty obvious that we're not going to reconcile this, so best to just let it go.  I'll be done with it now.

[Nebit 9]

Great stuff. Tournament rulings, as casual play, no one really cares.

 

Q) When is the "Range Ruler" actually used by an Attacking player during the Combat Phase?

A) ONLY during Attack step 1. The attacker may measure range to any number of enemy ships and check which enemy ships are inside his firing arc. Then the attacker chooses one of his weapons to attack with. Then he chooses one enemy ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack.

 

Q) For what actual purposes is the Range Ruler used by the controlling player in the Attack phase?

A) ONLY to determine range of an "Active ship" attacking. ATTACK: A ship can perform one attack when it "becomes the active ship" during the Combat phase. To "perform an attack" the ship resolves the following steps in order:

 

Order of things page 4 and 9;

 

Active ship Attack

Attack step 1 (where the Range Ruler is used).

 

If the Range Ruler is used during the Combat phase, the player must have activated a ship in order to use the Range Ruler in the first place, and the player is now in Attack step 1 for that current "Active" ship. Any previous "Active" ships that the Range Ruler was used for, that did not continue past Attack step 1, are finished with the Combat phase. 

 

Now, as we are not Droids, and prone to error and mistakes, we are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our "mental state" and are innocent until proven guilty, etc. thus our intentions are always assumed to be that of  "good and pure" people. (if the glove don't fit you must acquit)

 

That being said, the TO ruling we should expect as "good" people;

Have the player perform the closest thing to a legal action as possible to benefit the OPPONENT who was wronged (in this case all previous ships are finished with the Combat phase). Harsh, yes, but if the person in error is "good" as we have assumed already, they should have no problem, as they were the cause of the mistake in the first place. 

[ScottieATF 2,867]

I'm firmly with WWHSD on this.

First, a TO must not allow a player to benefit from taking illegal actions (non game term meaning). That is pretty basic stuff as if you allow rules to be broken and players to benefit from doing so you are screwing players that play within the rules, and encouraging players to break rules.

Secondly, a TO has to treat a measurement from a possible legal activation as a declaration of that ships activation, as the only way to legally make that measurement it to be activating that ship in that phase. Just as in the barrel roll example earlier in this thread, measurement of the action is defacto declaration on the action, just as measurement of possible attacks is defacto declaration of that ship being the active.

The alternatives are you allow the player to break the games rules and benefit from them, which you can't do as a TO, or because the player broke the game rules you end up giving them a game loss on that basis, which is needlessly punitive in this case. I really do not see how forcing a player to attack with the ship they have measured from can be considered punitive when the only thing you've denied them is something they aren't entitled, namely attack ranges of non-activating ships.

The players actions can be legal, the TO can ensure that the game state hasn't been violated, the TO should tell the player simply that, "Measuring attack range means you have chosen to attack with that ship, otherwise you've made an illegal measurement. I can't allow you to make an illegal measurement or benefit from one, so make that ships attack and move on".

[Buhallin 4,563]

The alternatives are you allow the player to break the games rules and benefit from them, which you can't do as a TO, or because the player broke the game rules you end up giving them a game loss on that basis, which is needlessly punitive in this case. I really do not see how forcing a player to attack with the ship they have measured from can be considered punitive when the only thing you've denied them is something they aren't entitled, namely attack ranges of non-activating ships.

So if someone measures from their Han when it's time for PS2s to attack, you give them a loss for it?

[WWHSD 9,273]

I think at this point it's pretty obvious that we're not going to reconcile this, so best to just let it go.  I'll be done with it now.

 

Agreed.

[Parravon 5,217]

Ditto

[ScottieATF 2,867]

The alternatives are you allow the player to break the games rules and benefit from them, which you can't do as a TO, or because the player broke the game rules you end up giving them a game loss on that basis, which is needlessly punitive in this case. I really do not see how forcing a player to attack with the ship they have measured from can be considered punitive when the only thing you've denied them is something they aren't entitled, namely attack ranges of non-activating ships.

So if someone measures from their Han when it's time for PS2s to attack, you give them a loss for it?

If your only alternative is to allow a player to get away with and benefit from breaking a basic rule, then yes in anything past a Casual level event you'd have to look to giving a game loss in that situation.

A player has created an illegal gamestate, if there is no way to rectify that situation then what exactly is a TO suppose to do but declare the game forfeit? Just tell the player not to do it again, while allowing them to benefit from the rule they just broke? That is a surefire way to get players to actively look for areas to exploit.

But I believe in that situation you have a remedy to rectify the game state, namely that you enforce measurement as a declaration of activation. And in the case of the what if you prescribed you lose the attacks you skipped over.

[Darth Emphatic 148]

I cant believe this conversation is still going. What is this game state we are talking about that is so absolutely detrimental to the match at hand? This could not be more of making mountains out of molehills.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Darth Emphatic

[VanorDM 11,599]

This could not be more of maiking mountains out of molehills.

This is the rules forum, and that's what we tend to do here. That and we start with pretty good sized molehills.

There tends to be two types of posts here, quick answers to questions or else we tend to get involved in fairly esoteric discussions of the finest points of the rules. If you see a thread on the rules form that's more than 2 pages long odds are pretty good it's the later.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

A player has created an illegal gamestate, if there is no way to rectify that situation then what exactly is a TO suppose to do but declare the game forfeit? Just tell the player not to do it again, while allowing them to benefit from the rule they just broke? That is a surefire way to get players to actively look for areas to exploit.

I truly hope X-wing never turns into the game you want it to be, with the players you seem to expect (and honestly even want).