Small based long movers and D+E Objectives

[Rorin]

If a small based long mover deploy opposite a D/E objective can it advance twice and be within 1 of said objective?

While measuring it seems very tight and due to minor variations (Size of gamemat with expansion/shrinkage, measurement of objectives varying slightly) this can change either way. Is there an intent here that we can follow?

First turn plays and deployment might be impacted heavily depending on if this works or not. It might also give an advantage to a local player knowing the exact size of a mat being played on if we get to having events with traveling involved (or just playing at someones home will given the mat owner a slight advantage in the game).

Of course all this is given on nothing blocking landing zones between the objectives. Assume 0 terrain between the deployment and the opponents side objective and also it is the first activation so no other character are blocking any potential landing spots.

[AMG_Pagani]

Maybe.

All measurements and placements are done inside the game. These measurements must always account for human error and a reasonable margin of error is acceptable inside of measurement.

What does this mean?

This means that actions must be executed in the game. These variances you've described are all reasonable margins of error - so it is possible over several measurements that something has not worked out despite being mathematically possible and it may change from game to game or table to table as humans are not perfect beings.

[Rorin]

Does this also mean that a long mover can contest/interact with the central objectives with 1 move depending on inaccuracies in setup?

I always assumed that was not possible or intentional, but how much inaccuracies can we expect to be reasonable?

If it came up in a game me and my opponent would probably double check measurements to ensure something isnt wrong as under normal circumstances it would not be possible. Is that the wrong way of doing things?

[AMG_Pagani]

It is up to the players to determine the amount of inaccuracy that is acceptable but in the end actual performance on the table is what is important, not a mathematical proof that something is (or isn't) possible.

Players that are intentionally doing things they know are not possible or are abusing inaccurate measuring on purpose are breaking the rules of the game and are performing unethically.