|
Post by lyrael on May 4, 2017 20:30:10 GMT
I get their intent, and to be honest, I don't think the majority of players do it. I find it really important to distinguish between 'I have not seen it come up as a problem' and 'I don't think its a problem for anyone'. A fair bit of the feedback I have seen from places is more the former than the latter.
I think a reasonable compromise is that you can use however many table markers you need to complete one activation. They then have to be removed before you can go onto the next one. So either one unit (with attachments) or a warjack (and a base for the warcaster to see where you would need to put him/her for the warjack to stay in range).
Obviously, if two players agree, then yeah, generally go with that. But if you're going to codify it at all, my suggestion seems like a reasonable way to do it that allows for you to see how many charges you can get off and still keep the unit in command, where you can get a warjack to and where the warcaster would have to be in order to be in range. But doesn't really allow you to plan out your whole turn, which I don't think most people do (and so its not a problem for them), but I do think PP saw enough of it to where they felt it needed to be dealt with.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on May 4, 2017 22:13:26 GMT
I think a reasonable compromise is that you can use however many table markers you need to complete one activation. They then have to be removed before you can go onto the next one. So either one unit (with attachments) or a warjack (and a base for the warcaster to see where you would need to put him/her for the warjack to stay in range). Apparently, they tried that internally before the CID cycle and it was more restrictive than the original rule, at least according to Pagani. (I may be remembering that wrong, it is 11.10 pm over here, and it's been a busy day.)
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 4, 2017 23:04:22 GMT
I think a reasonable compromise is that you can use however many table markers you need to complete one activation. They then have to be removed before you can go onto the next one. So either one unit (with attachments) or a warjack (and a base for the warcaster to see where you would need to put him/her for the warjack to stay in range). Apparently, they tried that internally before the CID cycle and it was more restrictive than the original rule, at least according to Pagani. (I may be remembering that wrong, it is 11.10 pm over here, and it's been a busy day.) It's more restrictive if you need to handle 3-4 activations based on the final position of the last activation (cloud walls, beasts with support, etc) but less restrictive in other ways (mapping out complex single activations, for instance). Depends on what you value more.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on May 6, 2017 11:46:15 GMT
I think the best way would be something like this "You can use how much tokens do you want during a model/unit activation. After that activation is finished, you must remove all tokens from the table, except a maximum of a single marker that can be keept on the table between activations".
That way, you can keep track of something out of activation (es, the final position of a warbeast or warlock) only with a single marker, but can use as many as you wish to work within single activations leaving room for clean measurements.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 6, 2017 15:16:34 GMT
I think the best way would be something like this "You can use how much tokens do you want during a model/unit activation. After that activation is finished, you must remove all tokens from the table, except a maximum of a single marker that can be keept on the table between activations". That way, you can keep track of something out of activation (es, the final position of a warbeast or warlock) only with a single marker, but can use as many as you wish to work within single activations leaving room for clean measurements. The best way would be to use the measurement rules in the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 6, 2017 15:50:25 GMT
I think the best way would be something like this "You can use how much tokens do you want during a model/unit activation. After that activation is finished, you must remove all tokens from the table, except a maximum of a single marker that can be keept on the table between activations". That way, you can keep track of something out of activation (es, the final position of a warbeast or warlock) only with a single marker, but can use as many as you wish to work within single activations leaving room for clean measurements. The best way would be to use the measurement rules in the rulebook. So you mean not allowing any table markers or proxy bases because there is nothing that says you can use these things in the prime/primal rules.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 6, 2017 18:46:58 GMT
The best way would be to use the measurement rules in the rulebook. So you mean not allowing any table markers or proxy bases because there is nothing that says you can use these things in the prime/primal rules. Indeed. It is at the very least a leap of logic to take the statement 'you may measure anything at any time' to mean 'you can put down any number of permanent or semi-permanent table markers and proxy bases down to indicate anything you want.' The intent of the rule (based on plain meaning AND on the expressed intent of the developers) was that you should be able to measure any single discrete move you want to make - ie. to prevent the NPE of failing a charge, ending up inside of an enemy's threat range, or being out of your OWN threat range by 1/8 of an inch by allowing you to check ahead of time if you are/can get to the distance you want to be at. It was NOT to allow you to plot out multi-activation (or multi-stage movement) synergies with absolute precision to avoid the slightest risk of failure. You've said numerous times that it's a 'npe' to lose because you mismeasured a micrometer of distance. I say that if your plan relies on your ability to measure to miniscule distances over multiple movements/activations before actually activating anything, you deserve to fail. Or at the very least, you deserve to run the risk of failing due to having misjudged a distance. It's not unfair, any more than going in for a 90% assassination and failing is 'unfair.' If you can't ascertain whether your plan is possible or not to an acceptable degree of certitude, go for something less risky, just like you might not choose to go for a 60% assassination run if you still had a decent chance of winning on attrition/scenario. The wording of their current attempts to write a rule for premeasuring is clunky, admittedly, because they made the mistake of assuming that players would use pre-measuring 'reasonably' - ie. in line with the manner in which they intended it to be used. If certain players had not pushed the envelope of 'reasonable use of proxies' (and I've seen it happen) then the rule would likely not have required modification. Personally, the apparent ban on things like steppers seems illogical to me, because they promote clean play by making it possible to accurately measure moves that it would otherwise be impossible to measure accurately, and they DON'T allow a player to plan out multiple activations ahead of time. However, banning something like premeasuring the projected location of a trencher cloudwall with pinpoint accuracy at the start of the turn (while planning to actually activate those models at the end of the turn) strikes me as being entirely fair.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 6, 2017 20:46:34 GMT
The best way would be to use the measurement rules in the rulebook. So you mean not allowing any table markers or proxy bases because there is nothing that says you can use these things in the prime/primal rules. Not at all, they are measurement markers used for measuring distances. Premeasuring doesnt specify a tape measure.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 6, 2017 21:16:20 GMT
So you mean not allowing any table markers or proxy bases because there is nothing that says you can use these things in the prime/primal rules. Not at all, they are measurement markers used for measuring distances. Premeasuring doesnt specify a tape measure. Please see the quote below copied directly from the CID forums to get a better understanding of PP's stance on this subject. PPS_MrSoles #14.6 PPS_MrSoles commented 04-19-2017, 07:11 PM We can define how we wish premeasurement to be implemented. It is not a decision to either allow or don't. We can explain intent and shape the rules of OP to support our position. It may be worth pointing out that despite proxy bases having worked their way into various aspects of play they are not referenced a single time in Prime or Primal. The shape of premeasurement has evolved rapidly and without top down guidance until now
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 6, 2017 22:02:14 GMT
Not at all, they are measurement markers used for measuring distances. Premeasuring doesnt specify a tape measure. Please see the quote below copied directly from the CID forums to get a better understanding of PP's stance on this subject. PPS_MrSoles #14.6 PPS_MrSoles commented 04-19-2017, 07:11 PM We can define how we wish premeasurement to be implemented. It is not a decision to either allow or don't. We can explain intent and shape the rules of OP to support our position. It may be worth pointing out that despite proxy bases having worked their way into various aspects of play they are not referenced a single time in Prime or Primal. The shape of premeasurement has evolved rapidly and without top down guidance until now I've read that, it doesn't change or disprove my argument. A proxy base is simply a measurement tool, same as a tape measure, just with a weird shape. Any tool with a known size can be used as a measuring tool. "no top down guidance" doesn't mean "bad" at all.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 6, 2017 22:10:29 GMT
Not at all, they are measurement markers used for measuring distances. Premeasuring doesnt specify a tape measure. Please see the quote below copied directly from the CID forums to get a better understanding of PP's stance on this subject. PPS_MrSoles #14.6 PPS_MrSoles commented 04-19-2017, 07:11 PM We can define how we wish premeasurement to be implemented. It is not a decision to either allow or don't. We can explain intent and shape the rules of OP to support our position. It may be worth pointing out that despite proxy bases having worked their way into various aspects of play they are not referenced a single time in Prime or Primal. The shape of premeasurement has evolved rapidly and without top down guidance until now I do feel that "without guidance" is a bit naive. In Mk II premeasuring was rigidly and strictly defined (and highly restricted), and I saw proxy bases (usually called stunt bases) back then as well. For Mk III PP said to premeasure whatever you want: that is guidance too. They may not have foreseen where the community would take this, but if they really didn't expect us to take them at their word with regards to "whatever you want" they can't have considered their words very seriously.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 6, 2017 22:24:07 GMT
The intent of the rule (based on plain meaning AND on the expressed intent of the developers) was that you should be able to measure any single discrete move you want to make - ie. to prevent the NPE of failing a charge, ending up inside of an enemy's threat range, or being out of your OWN threat range by 1/8 of an inch by allowing you to check ahead of time if you are/can get to the distance you want to be at. It was NOT to allow you to plot out multi-activation (or multi-stage movement) synergies with absolute precision to avoid the slightest risk of failure. I agree that something like that seems to be the intent. However, I feel like it is hard to pinpoint the reasoning behind that intent. They think that one type of measurement failure is bad, but another type of measurement failure is OK. And I'm not sure I entirely see why. My best guess is that PP ultimately actually think that all kinds of measurement failure is OK. They liked the Mk1 and Mk2 system, obviously, since they followed it for many years. I think the allowing of premeasuring in Mk3 was a compromise and not something they really wanted. WM is a classic GW Warhammer style game at heart, and the concept of eyeballing measurements rather than premeasuring them is what its core engine was built around. Changing that has inadvertently made the game into something too far away from the developers' vision I think.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 6, 2017 22:28:05 GMT
Please see the quote below copied directly from the CID forums to get a better understanding of PP's stance on this subject. PPS_MrSoles #14.6 PPS_MrSoles commented 04-19-2017, 07:11 PM We can define how we wish premeasurement to be implemented. It is not a decision to either allow or don't. We can explain intent and shape the rules of OP to support our position. It may be worth pointing out that despite proxy bases having worked their way into various aspects of play they are not referenced a single time in Prime or Primal. The shape of premeasurement has evolved rapidly and without top down guidance until now I've read that, it doesn't change or disprove my argument. A proxy base is simply a measurement tool, same as a tape measure, just with a weird shape. Any tool with a known size can be used as a measuring tool. "no top down guidance" doesn't mean "bad" at all. That interpretation is about as asinine as your insistence that measuring a deployment zone was 'prohibited by the new rules.' It's absurd. Go up to 10 ordinary wargamers and ask them what 'measuring devices' they bring to a game, and they'll list measuring tapes, warsticks, widgets, etc - items that are used to accurately measure the distance between two points. A proxy base is NOT, by any reasonable person's standard, a measuring device. pangurban: I'm curious as to what circumstances you saw proxy bases used in in Mk2 - given the lack of premeasuring, I can't think of many uses for them. Personally, I only saw the proxies come out when you had a model that wouldn't fit where you wanted the base to go, due to overhang, or when demonstrating a movement (after having committed to it.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 6, 2017 22:45:46 GMT
The intent of the rule (based on plain meaning AND on the expressed intent of the developers) was that you should be able to measure any single discrete move you want to make - ie. to prevent the NPE of failing a charge, ending up inside of an enemy's threat range, or being out of your OWN threat range by 1/8 of an inch by allowing you to check ahead of time if you are/can get to the distance you want to be at. It was NOT to allow you to plot out multi-activation (or multi-stage movement) synergies with absolute precision to avoid the slightest risk of failure. I agree that something like that seems to be the intent. However, I feel like it is hard to pinpoint the reasoning behind that intent. They think that one type of measurement failure is bad, but another type of measurement failure is OK. And I'm not sure I entirely see why. My best guess is that PP ultimately actually think that all kinds of measurement failure is OK. They liked the Mk1 and Mk2 system, obviously, since they followed it for many years. I think the allowing of premeasuring in Mk3 was a compromise and not something they really wanted. WM is a classic GW Warhammer style game at heart, and the concept of eyeballing measurements rather than premeasuring them is what its core engine was built around. Changing that has inadvertently made the game into something too far away from the developers' vision I think. I feel like their reasoning looks something like this: 1. It's not 'exciting' or 'fun' for someone to declare a charge, have it fail due to being 1/8 of an inch short, and then lose a heavy or whatever to retaliation. It's also not 'exciting' or 'fun' to watch someone use weaponized trig to determine if they are or are not in range for said charge. WMH is a game about giant robots beating on giant monsters (or more rarely, the other way around,) and when a player decides to commit a beast/warjack, it should generally get to do something before it dies. 1 sub a) NOT having premeasuring presents a barrier to entry to new players, as the cost of NOT being good at guessing distances is potentially massive, and as such veterans tend to be good at it. This makes learning the game less fun for new players, as they will fail their own charges (or whatever) more often, and leave their stuff in their opponents' charge range more often. simple premeasuring means that fewer new players will 'drop out' of the game before becoming fully invested. 2. It's not 'exciting' or 'fun' to watch someone meticulously plot out how they are going to kill you for 10 minutes before they even begin doing so. It's also not exciting or fun to turn what should be a game about giant robots beating on giant monsters into a giant math problem. Risky, multi-stage maneuvers should carry an element of risk, not just be a chore in terms of determining the precise best order of activations. 2 sub a) unlimited premeasuring is intimidating to new players, who see the mess of widgets and proxies on the table and get scared off. It also increases the cost of entry for new players(who have to pick up a bunch of widgets and proxies which by and large, PP doesn't sell) without increasing our own profits. 2 sub b) limiting pre-measuring will likely curtail 'out-of-nowhere' assassinations requiring perfect synchronicity between multiple pieces. These assassinations are not 'fun' ways to end the game, and again, deter new players. Essentially, pre-measuring was likely intended to ensure that 'typical' interactions in the game can be performed safely (e.g. charging.) It was not intended to enable complex assassinations or to entirely eliminate risk from the maneuvering portion of the game.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 0:39:08 GMT
I've read that, it doesn't change or disprove my argument. A proxy base is simply a measurement tool, same as a tape measure, just with a weird shape. Any tool with a known size can be used as a measuring tool. "no top down guidance" doesn't mean "bad" at all. That interpretation is about as asinine as your insistence that measuring a deployment zone was 'prohibited by the new rules.' It's absurd. Go up to 10 ordinary wargamers and ask them what 'measuring devices' they bring to a game, and they'll list measuring tapes, warsticks, widgets, etc - items that are used to accurately measure the distance between two points. A proxy base is NOT, by any reasonable person's standard, a measuring device. pangurban : I'm curious as to what circumstances you saw proxy bases used in in Mk2 - given the lack of premeasuring, I can't think of many uses for them. Personally, I only saw the proxies come out when you had a model that wouldn't fit where you wanted the base to go, due to overhang, or when demonstrating a movement (after having committed to it.) I don't care what "ordinary Wargamers" think. A measurement is a measurement, be it tape measure, manometre or measuring scales. All it takes for something to do a measurement with is a known distance. That is how the Radius of a single Warmachine base can be measured by either placing down an equivalent sized base or by measuring the measurement of that size with a tape measure because you can have them together with an equals sign. 1 small Warmachine Base (WBs) = 30mm 5*WBs= 150mm Just because it doesn't have seperate ticks doesn't make it not a measurement. Call it asinine, but you are simply wrong. Also measuring Deployment zone was prohibited by the new rules. Call it absurd but its the rules. Follow them or not, you can't assume the best you can only do what is written.
|
|