|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 7, 2017 1:19:37 GMT
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. First, you are interpreting language. let's make that very clear. The definition of 'measurement device' given by PP does not include proxy bases, and you are trying to read it in. That means that what the ordinary person (to whom the language was directed) thinks is critical in determining the meaning of the language in question. In law, we refer to it as 'plain meaning' and the 'reasonable person standard.' Since you seem so hell-bent on treating WMH rules as an exercise in statutory interpretation, you should at least adhere to the rules of statutory interpretation in putting forward your interpretations. Second, there's another rule in interpretation we call 'absurdity' - If your interpretation produces an absurd result, or one which frustrates the overall purpose of the document, there is a strong presumption against that interpretation. Your interpretations here produce absurd results - being unable to mark your deployment zone would be absurd. F urthermore, the devs have clarified as absolutely NOT being what they intended, which, on a rule which is still in development, is almost 100% definitive. So there's that. Furthermore, it would be ridiculous to think that WMH (a game in which every measurement given - except base size - is in Imperial) would consider a Metric measuring device an appropriate 'measuring device.' Perhaps I'll go on the CID forums and suggest this addendum to the rules, as you seem hell-bent on breaking any rule that PP suggests which limits your use of proxy bases. The fact that you have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'measurement device' than PP (or the average person) has does not make you right. Even if you are technically correct from a scientific standpoints, you are not correct from an interpretive standpoint, and in this context, interpretation is what matters. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on May 7, 2017 2:15:23 GMT
You missed his point completely. He is an advocate of unlimited measuring in all of its forms, including proxy basing. In that circumstance what PP defines as a measuring device is immaterial. In that case any tool is available for use; proxy base, widget, warstick, yardstick, fruit, vegetable, or genitalia as long as it is accurate go nuts. If I am wrong in my interpretation maximus I apologize. I do not want to speak for you, I just found the above irksome.
All said I have not seen a good reason to limit premeasuring. It takes away from the game without adding anything relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 7, 2017 2:29:48 GMT
You missed his point completely. He is an advocate of unlimited measuring in all of its forms, including proxy basing. In that circumstance what PP defines as a measuring device is immaterial. In that case any tool is available for use; proxy base, widget, warstick, yardstick, fruit, vegetable, or genitalia as long as it is accurate go nuts. If i am wrong maximus I apologize I do not want to speak for you I just found the above irksome. All said I have not seen a good reason to limit premeasuring. It takes away from the game without adding anything relevant. What 'should' be and what the rules 'do' say are two separate things. I have absolutely no issue with Octavius arguing as to what the rules 'should' say - he's absolutely entitled to his opinion on the matter. It becomes a problem when he supports his position by drawing the most ridiculous interpretations of the rules possible. Whether or not the rules should allow unlimited premeasuring is not the point. The point is that PPs rules for limiting premeasuring are not the unworkable mess Octavius would have us believe they are. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on May 7, 2017 2:57:41 GMT
If you want to be specific the current rules of the game say you can measure whatever you want at anytime including using proxy bases. Actually, this is a debate on what it should be not what it is. You are debating on what the rules could be at a later date not now. If the limits should even be in place is up for debate. This is the perfect time to contest its implementation.
Also yes the rules as written are a mess, they detract from gameplay for no relevant gain. I am totally psyched for my game play experience to be worse, super cool. Adding eyeballing as a relevant skill to the game again, lots of fun, possibly all of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 3:17:26 GMT
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. First, you are interpreting language. let's make that very clear. The definition of 'measurement device' given by PP does not include proxy bases, and you are trying to read it in. That means that what the ordinary person (to whom the language was directed) thinks is critical in determining the meaning of the language in question. In law, we refer to it as 'plain meaning' and the 'reasonable person standard.' Since you seem so hell-bent on treating WMH rules as an exercise in statutory interpretation, you should at least adhere to the rules of statutory interpretation in putting forward your interpretations. Second, there's another rule in interpretation we call 'absurdity' - If your interpretation produces an absurd result, or one which frustrates the overall purpose of the document, there is a strong presumption against that interpretation. Your interpretations here produce absurd results - being unable to mark your deployment zone would be absurd. F urthermore, the devs have clarified as absolutely NOT being what they intended, which, on a rule which is still in development, is almost 100% definitive. So there's that. Furthermore, it would be ridiculous to think that WMH (a game in which every measurement given - except base size - is in Imperial) would consider a Metric measuring device an appropriate 'measuring device.' Perhaps I'll go on the CID forums and suggest this addendum to the rules, as you seem hell-bent on breaking any rule that PP suggests which limits your use of proxy bases. The fact that you have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'measurement device' than PP (or the average person) has does not make you right. Even if you are technically correct from a scientific standpoints, you are not correct from an interpretive standpoint, and in this context, interpretation is what matters. Firstly, saying "I am interpreting language" implies that you aren't, which is silly. All language is interpretive. There isn't a single kind of language that isn't. The definition of 'measurement device'. Your 'Reasonable person' argument is far less about the average person and more about a person with reason. No person with reason would think that you can't transfer accurately between mm and Inches. Proxy bases and proxy base measurements aren't 'absurd', they are a logical extension of the rules stating I can measure what I want. To put it in a legal context, this is like Jury Nullification. It isn't a rule, it is a logical consequence of another rule. If I can measure anything, I can measure the area of a base and where it can go. This isn't some kind of specific interpretation of rules, it is literally regular interpretation. Maths isn't interpretive. Second, your Absurdity rule is silly. I am under no onus to read the rule and only apply it when it works best and then say that its fine when it is non functional. If a rule doesn't cover a case, then it doesn't cover a case and it needs to be changed. Measuring deployment was strictly forbidden according to the rules because of the way you were allowed to measure things. Measuring deployment with a number of sticks across the front end was, in actuality, an infinite number of measurements between the board edge and 7" (or 10", etc) up. This was not allowed, as only 1 measurement is allowed at a time. Saying "that is absurd" is right, but its not the use of the rule that is absurd, it is the rule itself. Now if, theoretically, I had a single measurement stick 7" tall and 48" wide then I would be able to measure my deployment exactly and legally. You see how a bad rule produces absurd results? This isn't due to some kind of fractured interpretation it is merely applying the rule to the way people play the game and finding it simply doesn't work. You still can't technically measure your deployment zone in this way, you have to measure each piece separately, which is ripe for mistakes. PP have a limitless resource (measurements) and are trying to put a cap on it. But you can't put a cap on infinity because it isn't a number and there will always be a way to nullify their intent through basic reasoning. The fact that all the rule does is force people who don't want to cheat (remember, putting a model further than it is allowed is cheating) to go through hoops is reason alone that the rule is non-functional. The Devs have clarified that is 'not what they intended' but it is STILL ILLEGAL. Their intent is not in the words written on the page. Any lawyer looking at the constitution when arguing with literalists should know that. What matters is the words on the page, not the intent behind them. You can intend all you want, but if your written word doesn't state your intention then the written word is wrong. The rulebook also states "A player can measure any distance, for any reason, for any time". This is all the rulebook states on the legality of measurements, It doesn't say "only inches" or "only tape measures". I can measure a 30mm circle at any point, meaning I can place a base down at that point. That isn't 'absurd', it is mathematical truth. If I can measure any distance, I can measure a bases distance and place it wherever. Placing a base-sized disk down at a point makes it convenient, just like measuring a metre is better when you use an appropriately long stick, rather than doing it in 2" increments. Its entirely possible to measure a metre using a 2" stick with very simple maths, its just annoying. Feel free to go suggest that I'm not allowed to measure in cm or mm, luckily there isn't a single method in the world to move between those 2 measurements. Oh except that an inch is 2.546 CM and a cm is 10 mm. Just because you want to be lazy with your maths doesn't mean I have to. Adding a rule to say I can only measure in inches simply means that I state that instead of putting down a 30mm base on the field I put a 1.1811 Inch base on the field. Your rule is non-functional because it literally cannot prevent mathematical law from accomplishing what its best at, which is finding what can be found. I'm hell bent on breaking PP's rule for 2 reasons. 1. Playing with Proxy bases is fun and engaging. It makes players choices matter rather than stupid measurement fails losing them games. 2. Their stated intention is impossible. Good players will immediately nullify the rule with a few basic ideas and players just getting into the world of tournaments will be Firetrucked over by annoying minutiae that don't do anything. They are asking their rules to be tested. I have tested them and found them not fun, not function, and not something that adds anything to the game except nuance and arguments. If you want to hide behind 'interpretations' and 'absurdity', fine, but try to interpret 30mm to not be 1.1811 Inches. I dare you. |
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 3:18:28 GMT
You missed his point completely. He is an advocate of unlimited measuring in all of its forms, including proxy basing. In that circumstance what PP defines as a measuring device is immaterial. In that case any tool is available for use; proxy base, widget, warstick, yardstick, fruit, vegetable, or genitalia as long as it is accurate go nuts. If i am wrong maximus I apologize I do not want to speak for you I just found the above irksome. All said I have not seen a good reason to limit premeasuring. It takes away from the game without adding anything relevant. What 'should' be and what the rules 'do' say are two separate things. I have absolutely no issue with Octavius arguing as to what the rules 'should' say - he's absolutely entitled to his opinion on the matter. It becomes a problem when he supports his position by drawing the most ridiculous interpretations of the rules possible. Whether or not the rules should allow unlimited premeasuring is not the point. The point is that PPs rules for limiting premeasuring are not the unworkable mess Octavius would have us believe they are. Actually, it is. If the rules aren't unworkable then you haven't broken them yet. Give it time and you'll find it. |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690 
|
Post by zich on May 7, 2017 4:25:04 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with Mr Soles on that interpretation of the rules. After all they also do not say aynthing about using - for example - radials to display model health, yet PP seemingly take no offense in that. Ultimately what this thread proves very well is that there is room for interpretation here and Mr Soles seems to interpret this rule differently than the playerbase - which is of course okay.
I don't think that's all too relevant though. Steamroller is not there to interpret core rules. It's there to provide tournament guidelines. It is becoming more and more apparent that a measurement restriction - be it as useful or useless as it will - has no place there. Especially if PP are intent on rushing SR17 out as fast as possible. They simply haven't given this enough though. We're in the last week and they have only just woken up to the thought that more than one measurement marker might actually be necessary in some situation. I'd prefer they gave this a bit more time. If they want a limitation, make it a well thought-out one that everyone can live with. And most importantly, make it a compromise. Opionions on the matter clearly are divided and in almost any such situation a middle ground is the right call.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 7, 2017 5:20:56 GMT
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. If this is their reasoning shouldn't the limitations on premeasuring be in the base rules rather than the competitive play document? New players don't start playing Warmachine by jumping into Steamroller events, they start with pick up games at local clubs and stores. |
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on May 7, 2017 7:42:08 GMT
[...] shouldn't the limitations on premeasuring be in the base rules rather than the competitive play document? New players don't start playing Warmachine by jumping into Steamroller events, they start with pick up games at local clubs and stores. This is probably the best argument I've read for keeping the steamroller document limitless for measurement markers. Of course, if you give them the idea, then they'll errata the rulebook... |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 7, 2017 8:32:59 GMT
The fact that you have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'measurement device' than PP (or the average person) has does not make you right. Even if you are technically correct from a scientific standpoints, you are not correct from an interpretive standpoint, and in this context, interpretation is what matters. I think that the point that can be made by Octavius' arguments isn't that we can "technically" argue our way out of the new restrictions. You are of course correct that the "tecnically" issues are immaterial - we know on some basic level what PP are trying to say, even if they use arguments that aren't technically solid to say it. It doesn't matter if their arguments are flawed, because PP aren't a lawyer in this case - they are the judge, and what they decide is just that. And if we know what they mean, we can't weasel our way out of it. However, I think the arguments show that PP's underlying logic isn't consistent. Which is what I think. Your argument seems to be that PP are working with concepts that "ordinary players" appreciate. PP say that failing a charge is a bad thing now (even though it wasn't in Mk1 and Mk2) and therefore you are now allowed to make sure that you don't fail charges. So: When it comes to a charge, the risk of failure isn't dramatic and exciting, and premeasuring isn't boring. But failing anything when it involves planning ahead and involving the activations of other models is fine, because: When it comes to anything that isn't a charge, then the risk of failure is dramatic and exciting, and premeasuring is boring. So PP are looking at the game and drawing this line about what is fun and what isn't. That's the gist of your 1-2 post. And you seem to agree with them, and also think that "ordinary players" would agree with it too, if I interpret you correctly. I feel like when Octavius points out the technical problems with PP's attempts to enforce this logic, what it shows is that the distinction between the two situations is illogical and ultimately arbitrary. PP like premeasuring sometimes, and not at other times. They can try and codify it by making a rule that you can't put down table markers, but that's just a symptom rather than the cause issue. The cause issue is that allowing partial premeasuring is logically awkward, because it's inconsistent to say that sometimes premeasuring makes for a better game experience and sometimes premeasuring makes for a worse game experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 7, 2017 8:36:22 GMT
[...] shouldn't the limitations on premeasuring be in the base rules rather than the competitive play document? New players don't start playing Warmachine by jumping into Steamroller events, they start with pick up games at local clubs and stores. This is probably the best argument I've read for keeping the steamroller document limitless for measurement markers. Of course, if you give them the idea, then they'll errata the rulebook... I would not be surprised if they do errata the prime/primal books after this to more clearly define what they mean by pre measurement. |
|
|
|
Post by MyAccurateSack on May 8, 2017 10:03:50 GMT
... or genitalia as long as it is accurate go nuts. I don't know if it was intentional, but this is great. |
|
