|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 3, 2017 12:30:40 GMT
I have a poor short term memory. If someone is placing ten measure-markers, all for different things, I'm going to forget what the first one represents by the time you get to the fifth. I'm not against the idea of multiple measure-markers, they really are a valuable tool, but I am against the idea of excessive measure-markers. That's fine, just what's a problem with a ruling that says you remove widgets by the end of your turn. Or alternative: Marketting opportunity. Require Measuring widgets to be titled if your leaving them on the field. PP can sell some of their own if they wish, like they do for spell tokens.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 3, 2017 12:41:10 GMT
This whole discussion makes me ponder. When Mk3 was released, everyone was happy and said that WM was the last game of this type that still clung on to the old GW paradigm of no premeasuring. The closest equivalents to WM, Malifaux and Infinity, had already switched over to allow premeasuring and everyone loved it. So... if widgetgate is a thing in WM, then what's the story with Malifaux and Infinity? Is the table being cluttered up with table markers a thing unique to WM, or is it present in those other games too? Is it considered a problem there too? And if not, why not? Like I said before, those games are in general less competitively focused than Warmachine. But, of what little I saw of it, Malifaux had proxies go down to make sure measurements were correct and combos worked, although I found that the Combos in malifaux are more baked into the list than in Warmachine, meaning that combo is somehting the models do, not something they can do.
|
|
tort
Demo Gamer
Posts: 18
|
Post by tort on May 3, 2017 12:42:08 GMT
I really do not get this point, in part due to the reason you mentioned. Do PP honestly want us to play without planning our turns? I don't see how you can have a tactical wargame without planning at the very least a turn ahead. I think they want you to have a general idea of what you want to do, but to not hinge your plans on where *exactly* a model will end up when you are moving other models than the model in question. I think I get that the argument is that you cannot (openly) be precise about planning if you cannot put down table markers. That you want to know exactly where model A will end up later while you are moving model B. But PP's vision is that you can only be precise about the model you are currently moving, i.e. model B. If it causes imprecision and hesitation to not know exactly where model A, that you haven't moved yet, will be placed later in the turn, that imprecision is meant by PP to be part of playing the game. Or if you want to use internal tricks in your head to figure out exact placement without using a marker, then having the skills to be able to do those tricks is meant to be part of being good at the game. There's no "real" imprecision. You can still measure whatever you want you just can't do it easily, put down just one base and move it, make it hard for your opponent to agree to your measurement which means in practice that the EO gets called over to check the measurement. Realistically as long as you can still measure everything either you and your opponent will agree on a measurement or you'll call a judge before you commit. Without the restrictions on measuring before you have to commit there is no reason to do otherwise - as a judge I still have to call measurements regardless. Best case scenario for PP - on rare occasions a player will have a plan stuff up because for it to work two bases have to slightly overlap and this was impossibly to check with one base and then base sized widgets and he already moved the other models and cast spells etc. - is this good?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 3, 2017 12:56:52 GMT
There's no "real" imprecision. You can still measure whatever you want you just can't do it easily, put down just one base and move it, make it hard for your opponent to agree to your measurement which means in practice that the EO gets called over to check the measurement. Realistically as long as you can still measure everything either you and your opponent will agree on a measurement or you'll call a judge before you commit. Without the restrictions on measuring before you have to commit there is no reason to do otherwise - as a judge I still have to call measurements regardless. Best case scenario for PP - on rare occasions a player will have a plan stuff up because for it to work two bases have to slightly overlap and this was impossibly to check with one base and then base sized widgets and he already moved the other models and cast spells etc. - is this good? I agree that there isn't any real imprecision. And I don't think PP want imprecision per se, or people to stuff up. Isn't the only difference between using table markers and not using table markers that when you use them, you have a visual indication of where you are planning to move models B, C and D on the table while you are moving A? And isn't that what PP want - that while you are moving A, you have to keep your planned movements of B, C and D in your head, rather than having them visible on the table? And if you want to know something continuously, you have to keep going back to measure, rather than placing a marker?
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 3, 2017 13:02:54 GMT
There's no "real" imprecision. You can still measure whatever you want you just can't do it easily, put down just one base and move it, make it hard for your opponent to agree to your measurement which means in practice that the EO gets called over to check the measurement. Realistically as long as you can still measure everything either you and your opponent will agree on a measurement or you'll call a judge before you commit. Without the restrictions on measuring before you have to commit there is no reason to do otherwise - as a judge I still have to call measurements regardless. Best case scenario for PP - on rare occasions a player will have a plan stuff up because for it to work two bases have to slightly overlap and this was impossibly to check with one base and then base sized widgets and he already moved the other models and cast spells etc. - is this good? I agree that there isn't any real imprecision. And I don't think PP want imprecision per se, or people to stuff up. Isn't the only difference between using table markers and not using table markers that when you use them, you have a visual indication of where you are planning to move models B, C and D on the table while you are moving A? And isn't that what PP want - that while you are moving A, you have to keep your planned movements of B, C and D in your head, rather than having them visible on the table? And if you want to know something continuously, you have to keep going back to measure, rather than placing a marker? Actually PP stated that they want people to stuff up. Problem is, much like debt, there are good stuff ups and bad stuff ups. Proxy limitations cause bad stuff ups. Proxy bases help encourage good stuff ups.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 3, 2017 13:12:50 GMT
This whole discussion makes me ponder. When Mk3 was released, everyone was happy and said that WM was the last game of this type that still clung on to the old GW paradigm of no premeasuring. The closest equivalents to WM, Malifaux and Infinity, had already switched over to allow premeasuring and everyone loved it. So... if widgetgate is a thing in WM, then what's the story with Malifaux and Infinity? Is the table being cluttered up with table markers a thing unique to WM, or is it present in those other games too? Is it considered a problem there too? And if not, why not? Like I said before, those games are in general less competitively focused than Warmachine. But, of what little I saw of it, Malifaux had proxies go down to make sure measurements were correct and combos worked, although I found that the Combos in malifaux are more baked into the list than in Warmachine, meaning that combo is somehting the models do, not something they can do. I think it's the nature of the games more than anything. Smaller model counts. Infinity has a ton of terrain that can pretty much replace markers and positioning troops relative to one another is not really as essential as it is in WM/H. Malifaux limits chained activations to two, I believe. There's just less reason to use a lot of proxies.
|
|
|
Post by schostoppa1 on May 3, 2017 13:22:32 GMT
I think PP has even stated the widgets and table markers arent even in the rules anywhere in Prime/Primal. The mass table marker abhse is a community interpretation. I beleove the actual wording is "A player may measure any distance at any time" Does this mean of the current boardstate or the future boardstate? What is defined as a measurement? what does anytime mean? The community ran with it as the best possible player friendly version it could. PP has stated that was not the intent and decided to tone it back. We are lucky we even still get a single table marker rather the only measuring device allowed is a tape measure. As far as appearences go and table clutter. Ive bought into games specifically because of what i saw on the table. its how how i got into 40k, armada, WM, cryx specifically and even boardgames. seeing colorful tokens is much better than seeing 2 dozen black circles. especially when the player isnt even touching his models. granted now that im in the game the look isnt as important because im more realistic with what to expect and the rules have kept me engaged. (as testament of my mass of unpainted models and crappy home table lol)
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 3, 2017 13:54:08 GMT
Like I said before, those games are in general less competitively focused than Warmachine. But, of what little I saw of it, Malifaux had proxies go down to make sure measurements were correct and combos worked, although I found that the Combos in malifaux are more baked into the list than in Warmachine, meaning that combo is somehting the models do, not something they can do. I think it's the nature of the games more than anything. Smaller model counts. Infinity has a ton of terrain that can pretty much replace markers and positioning troops relative to one another is not really as essential as it is in WM/H. Malifaux limits chained activations to two, I believe. There's just less reason to use a lot of proxies. Thanks. So it sounds like a combination of factors that makes it a WM-specific issue.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 3, 2017 13:59:53 GMT
I think PP has even stated the widgets and table markers arent even in the rules anywhere in Prime/Primal. Which is why someone earlier mentioned that what this is all about is PP wanting to codify a sportsmanship issue. Which I agree with. Whether you can use a table marker to indicate a measurement is similar to whether you have to paint your models or mark your front arc. The game rules don't care either way, so it's about sportsmanship. Which is why it's a steamroller etiquette question and not a rules-technical question. I don't see anything wrong with codifying etiquette and sportsmanship issues though - as long as it's clear that it's more of a cultural issue than a technical issue. I.e. you have to follow the conventions that the local environment lays down, but it's not actually changing any rulebook rules to use markers or not, any more than it is to mandate that it is obligatory to wear a shirt while playing.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on May 3, 2017 14:20:00 GMT
We could do "no shirt - no powerup".
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 3, 2017 14:52:19 GMT
We could do "no shirt - no powerup". Or if you have a more glorious beard than your opponent, you gat an additional die and drop the lowest on all attacks
|
|
|
Post by Permutation Servitor on May 3, 2017 15:13:01 GMT
We could do "no shirt - no powerup". Or if you have a more glorious beard than your opponent, you gat an additional die and drop the lowest on all attacks Can I make a beard widget?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 3, 2017 15:18:47 GMT
Or if you have a more glorious beard than your opponent, you gat an additional die and drop the lowest on all attacks Can I make a beard widget? yeah sure, but you cannot place another one without taking it off
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 3, 2017 15:44:28 GMT
I have a poor short term memory. If someone is placing ten measure-markers, all for different things, I'm going to forget what the first one represents by the time you get to the fifth. I'm not against the idea of multiple measure-markers, they really are a valuable tool, but I am against the idea of excessive measure-markers. Why do you need to know what the measurements and markers mean? This is an IGoUGo game, there's nothing for you to do during your opponent's turn outside of things like Counter Charge and even then they only happen when something actually activates and triggers the conditions.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on May 3, 2017 16:17:15 GMT
I have a poor short term memory. If someone is placing ten measure-markers, all for different things, I'm going to forget what the first one represents by the time you get to the fifth. I'm not against the idea of multiple measure-markers, they really are a valuable tool, but I am against the idea of excessive measure-markers. Why do you need to know what the measurements and markers mean? This is an IGoUGo game, there's nothing for you to do during your opponent's turn outside of things like Counter Charge and even then they only happen when something actually activates and triggers the conditions. I'm calling the bases that are put down to represent where a model will be in the future a measure-marker or measurement marker. It's literally just too many of those that I struggle with. I need to know what they all represent because, during my opponent's turn, I'm trying to plan my turn out or I clock myself. (PP have defined proxy-bases as a base that is representing a model that cannot physically fit on the table, so I'm avoiding that term.)
|
|